Preamble

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.]

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Great Western Railway (Variation of Directors' Qualification) Bill (by Order).

Read a Second time, and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

Oral Answers to Questions — LOUGH SWILLY.

Professor Savory: asked the Secretary of State for Dominions Affairs whether any record exists in his Department showing whether the Government of Northern Ireland was consulted with regard to the abrogation by the Agreement of 1938 of the clause in the Agreement of 1921 reserving to His Majesty's Imperial forces the use of Lough Swilly, situated within a few miles of the City of Londonderry?

The Under-Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs (Mr. Shakespeare): No, Sir. As has been made clear in public statements by the present Prime Minister of Northern Ireland and his predecessor, the Northern Ireland Government was

a party to the Agreement of 1938 relating to the transfer of the ports.

Professor Savory: Does the hon. Gentleman realise how very seriously Northern Ireland is concerned, and that Lough Swilly is within nine miles of the City of Londonderry, which is the second city of Northern Ireland?

Mr. Shakespeare: I realise that.

Sir Hugh O'Neill: In view of the well-known fact that the Government of Northern Ireland were opposed to the handing-over of the ports to Southern Ireland, might it not have been better to have had consultations with them officially and to have paid some attention to their views?

Mr. Shakespeare: I was asked on a question of fact. Now the right hon. Gentleman asks for an opinion, and I am not called upon to give that.

Oral Answers to Questions — MAN-POWER (COTTON INDUSTRY).

Mr. Sutcliffe: asked the President of the Board of Trade what steps he proposes to take to review the whole conditions of man-power supply in the Lancashire region and the potential demand of the munition works; and whether for this purpose the Government will assist the cotton industry with expert guidance and advice from the start?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. Assheton): I have been asked to reply. The man-power requirements for the war industries are


under constant review, and it is clear that, so far as the Lancashire region is concerned, the munitions factories there can only be satisfactorily manned if a substantial contribution is made by the other industries in the region. The Government propose to put to industries proposals which will ensure the orderly release of workers as and when they are required for war employment. The cotton industry's position in the Lancashire region is, of course, of special importance in this respect, and I understand that my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade will give the industry all possible guidance and advice in the matter.

Mr. Sutcliffe: Will my hon. Friend undertake not to cut down supplies destined for the export trade or to remove the workers on those supplies; and will he do all in his power to facilitate an increase in the export trade of cotton goods?

Mr. Assheton: That is really mainly a matter for the Ministry of Supply.

Mr. Cary: Is it the intention to spread production over as great a number of mills as possible or to concentrate production in a limited number of the mills only?

Mr. Assheton: That will emerge when my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade puts his proposals to the industry.

Mr. Rhys Davies: Will the Department take great care not to destroy the possibilities of the future of this great export trade?

Mr. Assheton: As a Lancashire man, I will do anything I can in that direction.

Oral Answers to Questions — CHINESE SEAMEN (ARREST).

Mr. Vernon Bartlett: asked the Minister of Shipping whether he can make any statement concerning the arrest of Chinese seamen serving on s.s. "Ben Macgloe" and s.s. "Ben Macgloe"; what charges were made against them and what facilities were given them for preparing a defence; and will he, in order to prevent further trouble, consult with

those shipping firms that are not yet paying a 5 a month war-risk bonus with a view to their doing this.

The Minister of Shipping (Mr. Cross): Certain seamen of the "Ben Macdhui" were charged under Defence Regulation 47A with being absent without leave. These men were represented by counsel. Certain seamen of the "Ben Macgloe"were charged by the shipowners under Section 225 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, with wilfully disobeying the lawful command of the master of the vessel. Other charges under this Section were made against some of the defendants. These men were not represented at the first hearing, but some who were remanded were represented by counsel at the second hearing. As regards the last part of the Question, I have for a considerable time been in close touch with the shipping companies employing Chinese seamen as to their conditions of employment. The remuneration of Chinese seamen has been greatly increased since the war began and for seamen trading beyond Far Eastern coastal limits I am satisfied that that part of the increase which can properly be ascribed to war conditions, although it is not called war risk bonus, is more than the figure quoted by the hon. Member.

Mr. Bartlett: Is it not a fact that these Chinese seamen are in difficulties mainly because they feel that they should receive a war risk bonus and that the principal company, which employs nearly half the total number of Chinese seamen, has since December paid such a bonus; and is it not time that other companies followed suit?

Mr. Cross: I cannot agree that they found themselves in financial difficulties, because there has been an increase in remuneration which is considerable. Chinese sailors recruited in Hong Kong or Shanghai for voyages which take them beyond coastal limits now receive from £7 14s. a month to £9 14s. a month, according to the ship's trade, as compared with £1 18s. 9.d. pre-war. The whole of this increase can be ascribed to war conditions, although it is not called war risk bonus. Chinese sailors recruited in Singapore receive £ 10 15s. a month as compared with £3 15s. pre-war. Of the £ 7 increase, all but 17s. 6d. can be ascribed to war conditions.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY.

SENTENCE ON SOLDIER.

Mr. Silverman: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that 13076368, 905th Company, Auxiliary Military Pioneer Corps, Private Joseph Hopkinson, registered for military service with the 28 age group in August last; that he informed the military authorities of his change of address; that he received a new registration card showing his new address; that on 9th December last he was arrested, charged as an absentee, placed in police cells, and then discharged by a magistrate before whom it was proved that his calling-up papers had been sent to the wrong address; that, nevertheless, he was sentenced by his commanding officer to 14 days' confinement to barracks, and loss of pay and allowances; and what compensation he is to receive for this miscarriage of justice?

The Secretary of State for War (Captain Margesson): I am not yet in possession of all the facts in this case, but I have ascertained that, when Private Hopkinson was given 7 days (not 14 days) confinement to barracks, his commanding officer was not aware of all the circumstances regarding the change of address. The period for which the soldier did not receive pay was the 12 days between the date on which he was due to join and the date on which he actually joined, not the period during which he was confined to barracks. I will inform my hon. Friend when my inquiries have been completed.

Mr. Silverman: If the commanding officer when he imposed that sentence was not aware that the man was innocent, is it not clear that there was a serious miscarriage of justice, and ought not some compensation to be awarded?

Captain Margesson: It is just those facts to which I am giving my personal attention, but my inquiries are not yet complete.

NEW ESTABLISHMENTS.

Mr. Crowder: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware of the very serious delay which is taking place in authorising new establishments; and will he take steps to accelerate the work being done by the Establishments Committee?

Captain Margesson: Proposals for new establishments have to be very carefully considered in relation to other requirements and the resources available, and the time taken varies according to the circumstances of individual cases. Owing to technical difficulties, there has been some delay in printing new establishments, but steps are being taken to obviate this.

HUTTED CAMPS (LABOUR).

Mr. Crowder: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware of the shortage of skilled civilian labour avail able for building hutted camps; and whether he will consider withdrawing a sufficient number of tradesmen from their units and forming them into artisan works companies to cope with this work?

Captain Margesson: Several of the Army troops companies and artisan works companies are short of tradesmen, and steps are being taken to remedy this by transferring to these companies tradesmen from other arms where full use is not being made of their capabilities. It is not proposed at present to form more artisan works companies.

Mr. Crowder: Is my right hon. and gallant Friend aware that there are some thousands of tons of material in certain districts—I could give him particulars—which have been lying there since October, and which are only waiting for labour to erect these huts? Will he bear in mind that it is very urgent to get these new camps ready for the new intake of men by next October?

Captain Margesson: Yes, Sir.

DEPENDANTS' ALLOWANCES.

Mr. Lawson: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that many soldiers who are promoted allot an increased sum to their parents; that the Government allowance is usually reduced by the amount of the soldier's increased allotment; and whether he will take action to ensure that such parents actually receive the increased allotment of the soldier without any reduction in the Government allowance?

Captain Margesson: The amount of dependant's allowance is determined according to the need of the dependant and the support given by the soldier before h joined the Army. The amount which the


soldier is required to contribute towards that allowance varies according to his rate of pay, and increases as that rate increases. If the soldier makes a voluntary allotment in addition to the amount he is required to give, the dependant receives the whole of it in addition to the allowance.

Mr. Lawson: Do I understand the right hon. and gallant Gentleman to say that if the soldier receives an increased amount as a result of promotion and he allots that amount or any part of it to the parents, they actually receive it? Is he aware that they do not receive it and that their allowance is cut as a result of the increased contribution from the soldier?

Captain Margesson: I think that my hon. Friend is under a misunderstanding. I said that the amount which the soldier is required to contribute to the allowance varies according to the rate of pay and that it increases as the pay increases. If the soldier makes a voluntary allotment in addition to the amount that he is required to give, the dependants receive the whole of it. in addition to the allowance which is already given.

Mr. Lawson: Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that, although he has put it in his own particular way, the parents do not receive any increased allowance as the result of the soldier's promotion? If he does make an allotment, their allowance is reduced in pr. portion.

Captain Margesson: That is according to the Statute.

Mr. Buchanan: Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that if a soldier is promoted, neither the parents nor he gets any benefit and that the net income remains the same? If promotion takes place, ought there not to be some award to the soldier or his parents?

Captain Margesson: That is not strictly accurate. In some cases that may be so, but in other cases the soldier receives definite benefit to himself as a result of his promotion. What he is asked to contribute to his dependant's allowance does not swallow up the increase he gets.

EXPEDITIONARY FORCES (MISSING MEN),

Captain Duncan: asked the Secretary of State for War how many men are

still posted as missing from the British Expeditionary Force and the North West Expeditionary Force?

Captain Margesson: I do not think it would be desirable to publish the figures asked for, as they would be of interest to the enemy.

Captain Duncan: In view of the fact that the number of men who are missing must be very few, will my right hon. and gallant Friend review the arrangements for allowances and allotments to their next-of-kin, so that they will continue in full until a decision is made as to whether a man is a prisoner of war or can be presumed killed?

Captain Margesson: That is a different question, and perhaps my hon. and gallant Friend will give me notice of it.

Captain Duncan: Will my right hon. and gallant Friend look into it as far as I have given notice?

AUXILIARY TERRITORIAL SERVICE.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Cuthbert Head- lam: asked the Secretary of State for War whether the recommendations on the Auxiliary Territorial Service contained in the 12th Report from the Select Committee on National Expenditure are to be adopted by the War Office?

Captain Margesson: Effect has already been given to most of the recommendations made in the report.

Sir C. Headlam: Is my right hon. and gallant Friend aware that the large majority of the officers in the A.T.S. would prefer to be under the command of a major-general rather than a woman veteran of the last war?

Viscountess Astor: Will my right hon. and gallant Friend bear in mind that it is because they did not get a woman soon enough that they are in the mess they are in now? Was it not because of a man that there was complete failure and that he has left the War Office?

Miss Ward: Will my right hon. and gallant Friend bear in mind that there is great dissatisfaction about the organisation, and will he consider having an independent inquiry into the whole administration?

Sir C. Headlam: asked the Secretary of State for War whether full con-


sideration has been given to the replacement of non-combatant man-power in the Army by members of the Auxiliary Territorial Service; and, whether provision will be made for more binding terms of service, and more attractive rates of pay for members of the Auxiliary Territorial Service thus employed?

Captain Margesson: It is the policy to continue replacement by the Auxiliary Territorial Service of man-power in the Army wherever possible. The conditions of service in the Auxiliary Territorial Service are now under review.

Sir C. Headlam: Is my right hon. and gallant Friend aware that according to the existing Regulations it is impossible to employ women in vital work in the Army? I hope that he will take that into consideration when he is changing Regulations or considering new ones?

Captain Margesson: Yes, Sir.

Dr. Edith Summerskill: Are we to gather from that answer that the right hon, and gallant Gentleman is going to adopt the same methods as other Government Departments and give equal pay for equal work?

Captain Margesson: No, Sir. I did not say anything of the sort.

Sir C. Headlam: asked the Secretary of State for War whether there is any age limit now in force for officers of the Auxiliary Territorial Service?

Captain Margesson: The age limits for the appointment of officers of the Auxiliary Territorial Service are the same as for the enrolment of other ranks, that is, 18 to 43 years, except in the case of ex-service women and women with very exceptional qualifications who may be enrolled up to 50 years. All officers are appointed after a period in the ranks, and it is rare for any to be selected as young as 18 or 19. No age has been fixed at which the employment of Auxiliary Territorial Service officers is terminated.

Sir C. Headlam: Is my right hon. and gallant Friend aware that many ladies now serving in the A.T.S. are past their prime and that much resentment is felt by junior officers who feel, probably with truth, that they could do the work of these senior ladies with more efficiency and with fresher minds?

Viscountess Astor: What about this House of Commons and the Cabinet? We have octogenarians here, and doing very well.

Miss Ward: asked the Secretary of State for War at what date, for the first time, he proposes dependants' allowances should be payable to members of the Auxiliary Territorial Service entitled to them?

Captain Margesson: These allowances will be issued with effect from 27th January, 1941, or such later date as the conditions are fulfilled. My hon. Friend will understand that it will take time for claims to be received and investigated.

Miss Ward: Can my right hon. and gallant Friend say whether the financial department of the War Office has passed the arrangement and whether the forms have yet been sent out?

Captain Margesson: I must ask for notice on that specific point. I will look into it.

HOME GUARD.

Captain Cunningham-Reid: asked the Secretary of State for War whether, in order to obtain more men for the combatant Services, and in order not further to deplete agricultural labour, the Home Guard will be employed for duties in the manning of balloon and searchlight units, which arc mostly static posts?

Captain Margesson: The work of balloon detachments and searchlight units is of a whole-time and highly skilled nature, and it would not be practicable for it to be carried out by the Home Guard.

Captain Cunningham-Reid: Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that there are Home Guards who are prepared to spend the whole of their time on such duties, and is it not a fact that by employing these Home Guards in the manner I have suggested on non-technical duties an equivalent number of combatant men could be released?

Captain Margesson: That may be so, but there is already an operational role allotted to the Home Guard, and, as I said in my Answer, I do not think that the hon. and gallant Member's suggestion is really practicable.

Sir Stanley Reed: Is my right hon. and gallant Friend aware that many of those in touch with the Home Guard view with dismay proposals to divert them from those duties for which they were constituted and are fitted?

Brigadier-General Sir Ernest Making: asked the Secretary of State for War whether officers holding commissions in the Home Guard will be prejudiced in any way in respect of any disability or Army pensions of which they may be in receipt?

Captain Margesson: No, Sir. The grant of Home Guard commissions has no financial implications. It in no way affects the continuance of a disability or Service pension.

"DUNERA" INQUIRY.

Mr. Wedgwood: asked the Secretary of State for War, with reference to the "Dunera" court of inquiry, whether, in view of the interest taken in the matter, not only in this country, but in Australia,' he will see that this court is held in public and that evidence be taken and the injured parties represented?

Captain Margesson: As my right hon. Friend is aware, preliminary investigations are in progress. But the last party of the officers and men concerned did not return to this country until last Sunday, and, as there is a considerable number to be examined, it will be some days before the investigations are completed. As soon as that has been done, the Court of Inquiry will be set up. It will take evidence, but it will not be held in public.

Mr. Wedgwood: Before the terms of reference and the composition of the court of inquiry are fixed, will this House have an opportunity of discussing the matter, in order that the country at large may feel satisfied about it?

Captain Margesson: I do not really think that that is necessary. The question would imply that the War Office, and myself in particular, have something to hide in this matter. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman and the House that that is not so. I am most anxious to get at the root of this matter and to find out what has been happening, and the first thing to do is to have a court of inquiry set up to investigate. I have given the assurance that that will be done, and the

terms of reference will be sufficiently wide to ensure that the full facts can be brought out.

Mr. Wedgwood: What I want to be clear about is that the court will be able to deal with the reparation of the victim as well as the punishment of the guilty. The reparation of the victim is really almost more important.

Captain Margesson: I think we must deal with first things first. The first thing is to get at the facts, and that, I have given an assurance to the House, I am going to do. I have told the House that the last batch of these people arrived in this country only on Sunday. Investigations have already started, and the very moment they are complete I will set up a court of inquiry.

Mr. Edmund Harvey: Will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman communicate the decision of the court to the House?

Captain Margesson: Most certainly the House will be informed.

Mr. Wedgwood: Will the House be able to debate the court of inquiry?

Mr. Speaker: rose —

Mr. Wedgwood: I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment.

OFFICERS' EMERGENCY RESERVE.

Sir Reginald Blair: asked the Secretary of State for War whether members of the Army Officers' Emergency Reserve who are rejected on medical grounds are in all cases given information as to their medical grading; and, if not so informed in all cases, will he see that the practice is now changed?

Captain Margesson: It is the practice to inform all members of the Army Officers' Emergency Reserve in which medical category they have been placed, except in amputation cases for which no grading exists. In the latter cases, members are told whether or not they are fit for employment.

Mr. Robert Gibson: Can my right hon. and gallant Friend say now whether when those serving men who have been changed in category and brought into a lower category are men skilled in industry, they are immediately given an opportunity of returning to their occupations?

Captain Margesson: Perhaps the hon. and learned Member will put that Question on the Paper.

FREE TRAVELLING WARRANTS.

Mr. Bellenger: asked the Secretary of State for War what number of free travel warrants are issued yearly to military personnel proceeding on leave; and whether any increase in the number is contemplated?

Captain Margesson: Up till the present, the rule has been that two free travelling warrants a year are allowed for ordinary leave, and, in addition, soldiers have been given free travelling warrants for sick leave and compassionate leave granted when homes have been seriously damaged by enemy action. I have given instructions that the concession in regard to sick leave and compassionate leave should be extended to officers below field rank, and that in future all ranks will receive a free warrant for embarkation leave whether or not they have received their two free warrants in the year. As I have already stated, I am examining the question as to whether there are classes of personnel in the Army comparable to those in the other two Services to whom the concession of four free travelling warrants a year has been granted, but I have not waited until that examination is complete to announce the concessions referred to in the first part of this answer.

Mr. Bellenger: Is my right hon. and gallant Friend aware that it is not always the case that free travel warrants are granted for sick leave and compassionate leave, as the correspondence of hon. Members shows? In view of the statement he has now made, would it be possible for soldiers who have paid their own fares to reclaim the amounts to which they are entitled?

Captain Margesson: I do not think we can work backwards. I have announced the concession, and I think that is as far as I can go.

Mr. R. Gibson: Can my right hon. and gallant Friend say whether the distance of the serving soldier from his home is taken into account as a factor in considering either the length of leave or the number of warrants?

Captain Margesson: It does not affect the number of warrants.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH PRISONERS OF WAR.

Sir Henry Morris-Jones: asked the Secretary of State for War whether the British Red Cross Society is discriminating against prisoners of war in Oflag VII on the ground that some of them have been able to get occasional supplies from other sources; and whether recent reports from the camp show that the present condition of the prisoners shows signs of malnutrition?

Captain Margesson: The answer to both parts of the Question is "No, Sir." In the last fortnight of December, Oflag VII, which is an officers' camp with a population of 1,320, had more than 5,500 parcels. The allotment of parcels to camps is made by the International Red Cross at Geneva. A letter recently received from the camp says that parcels are now getting through much better.

Sir H. Morris-Jones: I have since received a communication stating that the parcels are now arriving satisfactorily.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND.

TEACHERS' SALARIES.

Mr. Mathers: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will indicate how Scottish local authorities have dealt with the recommendation of the National Joint Council regarding war increases on teachers' salaries; whether he approves this recommendation; and whether he is taking steps to see it is uniformly applied?

The. Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. T. Johnston): I understand that Scottish education authorities generally are giving sympathetic consideration to the recommendation of the National Joint Council. Seventeen out of the 35 authorities have so far submitted for approval revised salary schemes giving effect to the recommendation, and other authorities are, no doubt, considering similar action; but I have no authority to require the uniform application of the recommendation.

Mr. Mathers: Does not the right hon. Gentleman consider that, in view of the variation among the different authorities, it is time that something were done at least to make an endeavour to put these matters upon a uniform basis, not only with regard to teachers, but other workers as well?

Mr. Johnston: That is another matter, apart from the Question on the Paper.

WOMEN'S LAND ARMY.

Mr. Snadden: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he proposes to take in order to provide suitable accommodation for members of the Women's Land Army on farms?

Mr. Johnston: In cases where farmers cannot provide suitable accommodation on their farms for members of the Women's Land Army, or find lodgings for them nearby, agricultural executive committees have been asked to submit for approval schemes for the establishment of hostels, or for the provision of mobile accommodation.

SPECIAL CONSTABLES (RECRUITMENT).

Mr. Dobbie: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland, under what authority a chief constable refuses admittance of a citizen to membership of a special con stabulary, and at the same time refuses to give reasons for such refusal; whether he has any further statement to make in regard to railway man H. Griffin of Greenock, who made such application and was rejected, and the reason thereof refused; and whether he is aware of the dissatisfaction prevalent among railway- men about this case?

Mr. Johnston: The appointment of special constables is made by the magistrates in terms of Statute, but the recruitment of personnel is invariably left to the discretion of the chief constable, who is under no obligation to disclose to an applicant the grounds of his decision in selecting candidates. As regards the case referred to, I am unable to add further information to my predecessor's reply to the representations submitted by my hon. Friend.

Mr. Dobbie: In view of the facts, that this kind of complaint is being extended, especially in regard to railwaymen, that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Greenock (Mr. R. Gibson) has already raised the Question and had no satisfaction, and that the railwaymen's union feel very concerned about the matter, is the Minister not prepared to review the situation with the object of giving further instructions to chief constables, as railwaymen, in particular, feel that this is a precedent creeping into the government of the country?

Mr. Johnston: The point at the moment is that these matters are dealt with by Statute. It would obviously be a matter of great difficulty to lay down the rule that any applicant, whether railwayman or any other applicant, should be given a reason —

Mr. Buchanan: Why not?

Mr. Johnston: I say that it would be difficult for any Government to make any such rule, particularly when the Statute gives all the authority in the matter.

Mr. Dobbie: In view of the tremendous dissatisfaction, not only among railway-men but among other workers in the country, will not the right hon. Gentleman give the matter more consideration than he has given it up to the moment?

Mr. Johnston: It would require an amendment of the Statute.

Mr. Buchanan: Could not the right hon. Gentleman re-examine this matter and, as far as is within his power, make a recommendation to chief constables to reconsider this matter, in the light of the facts that have been placed before us?

Mr. Johnston: I have already explained that no power is vested in the Secretary of State to interfere with magistrates in their discretion. [Interruption.] I say that there is no power. Whether there ought to be or not is another matter.

Mr. Buchanan: Is it not a common occurrence that Ministers may, in cases where they have no power, make a recommendation strongly urging authorities to alter their decision? Could not the right hon. Gentleman at least do that?

Mr. R. Gibson: As this affects my constituency, Mr. Speaker, may I put a further Question?

Mr. Speaker: rose —

Mr. Buchanan: Raise it on the Adjournment.

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL DEFENCE.

NEWSPAPERS (SUPPRESSION).

Mr. Mander: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will consider the advisability of making a Regulation under the Defence of the Realm Act permitting an appeal to be


made to the courts against the suppression of a newspaper but enabling suppression to be maintained until the decision of the courts has been made?

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Peake): No. Sir. Apart from other objections to this proposal, my right hon. Friend thinks it is important that, if action is taken under Defence Regulation 2D, the House of Commons should have on early opportunity of expressing its approval or disapproval, and this would not be possible while the matter was awaiting review by the courts.

Mr. Mander: Would not a great deal of uneasiness be removed if this concession were made, as it would still permit the Government to take immediate action for the suppression of a newspaper?

Mr. Peake: That raises political issues of great importance. My right hon. Friend thinks it is important that the House of Commons should have an early opportunity of expressing its views on the question.

Mr. Mander: Does not the Minister appreciate that the House of Commons is not a judicial tribunal, but a political body? Ought not a person affected by an act of the Government have recourse to the courts?

Mr. Peake: My hon. Friend must see that, if there is an appeal to the courts, the processes of appeal and so forth may result in there being an interval of weeks, if not of months, before the House of Commons can discuss the matter.

Mr. G. Strauss: Is not the Minister aware that the main objection to putting the case of the "Daily Worker" before the courts, as stated by the Home Secretary, is that it would take weeks or months before the issue could be decided and that the "Daily Worker" would be appearing all that time; whereas, under the procedure suggested by the hon. Gentleman, that objection would be overcome?

FIRE PREVENTION (BUSINESS DIRECTORS).

Mr. Mander: asked the Home Secretary whether he will consider the advisability of amending the Fire Prevention
(Business Premises) Order, 1941, by making it clear that the duty of fire-watching falls upon all directors, whether managing directors or ordinary directors, whether they attend regularly, occasionally or not at all, in view of the excellent impression such joint action between capital and labour would create in industry?

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Home Security (Mr. Mabane): My right hon. Friend has no reason to believe that the purpose of the Order, namely, fire prevention, would be assisted at the present time by an amendment of the character suggested by the hon. Member, but if there are any grounds for supposing that those to whom the Order should properly apply are escaping a liability, he will certainly consider the question of amendment.

Mr. Mander: Is it not possible that a director, living in a safe area where there is no compulsion, may escape fire-watching altogether?

AIR-RAID WARDENS (EQUIPMENT).

Mr. Thurtle: asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that many air-raid precautions wardens are without helmets and respirators; and whether he can give an assurance that all possible steps are being taken to make good these deficiencies without delay?

Mr. Mabane: In a number of places, where volunteers have come forward in excess of the originally estimated requirements of the area, there have been complaints of shortages of these articles of personal protective equipment. I hope, however, that, in the near future, all wardens recognised as regular and effective may have a personal issue of these articles where they have not been already issued with them.

Mr. Thurtle: Is the Minister aware that this complaint is general and that this most excellent body of men is discouraged by a feeling of neglect; and will he therefore do everything he can to urge forward these supplies?

Mr. Mabane: I would not say the complaint is general. In almost every case issues have been made up to the limit of the original establishment. The complaints arise when volunteers are in excess of these establishments.

Mr. Denville: What does the Minister mean by "the near future"? Does he mean next week, the week after, next year or the next war?

Mr. Mabane: Perhaps a month or so.

Sir Francis Fremantle: Is not the Home Guard very much more important?

WOMEN FIRE SPOTTERS.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: asked the Minister of Labour whether he has decided to enlist the assistance of women spotters?

Mr. Assheton: There is no official restriction on the employment of women as raid spotters, and a number are, in fact, giving their services in this capacity.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: Can the hon. Gentleman indicate to the House what, if any, penalties are imposed on employé s who refuse to act as fire spotters?

Mr. Assheton: Perhaps my hon. Friend will put that Question down.

Miss Rathbone: Would my hon. Friend consider going rather further than that, and encouraging the employment of women fire spotters, in view of the fact that many more women are free from duties of this kind than men, and that their services are, to a very considerable extent, being neglected?

Mr. Assheton: It is a matter of arrangement in the factories between the employé s and the management.

INCENDIARY BOMB FIGHTING.

Mr. Mander: (by Private Notice): asked the Home Secretary whether he can make any statement in connection with giving advice to the public regarding incendiary bombs?

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Herbert Morrison): For a number of reasons I have hitherto proceeded on the view that the necessary guidance on the methods of dealing with incendiary bombs, including those which contain an explosive charge, was most suitably given through instruction imparted to the public by the local authorities and the Civil Defence Services. In the main I think this is still right, but in view of the very great increase in the number of fire bomb fighters, both in organised parties and otherwise, I have

come to the conclusion that there should be a more widespread development of my Department's general instructional publicity, including publicity on precaution any measures, through the Press and other channels. Local authorities are kept advised of the most up-to-date methods of dealing with incendiary bombs, and the detailed information and practical training, the need for which my hon. Friend will appreciate, will continue to be given under their auspices. I should like to pay my tribute to all those numbering hundreds of thousands who have responded to my appeal for fire bomb fighters and who already have been so successful in thwarting this dangerous form of attack.

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION (RELIGIOUS INSTRUCTION).

Mr. Brooke: asked the President of the Board of Education whether it is his immediate intention to discuss with local education authorities the subject matter of the proposals made, in agreement with the leaders of the Free Churches, by the Archbishops of Canterbury, York and Wales on the future of Christian education in schools?

The President of the Board of Education (Mr. Ramsbotham): Religious instruction in schools is a subject to which I attach great importance and I can assure my hon. Friend that any responsible proposals, including those to which he refers, which would involve changes in the provisions of the law or of the Board's regulations relating to religious instruction will have my close attention and will be the subject of consultation with local education authorities and the other interests, lay and clerical, concerned.

Oral Answers to Questions — WAR AIMS.

Mr. Wedgwood: asked the Prime Minister whether he will give time for the discussion of the Notice of Motion standing in the name of the right hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme concerning war aims?

[That, in the opinion of this House, no statement on war aims should be made by His Majesty's Ministers without previous consultation and agreement with the Government of the United States of North America.]

The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Attlee): No, Sir. I am afraid I cannot hold out any hope of special opportunity being given for discussion of the Motion standing in the name of my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Wedgwood: Will the right hon. Gentleman urge that no statement of war turns should be laid down by His Majesty's Government without consultation with the United States Government?

Oral Answers to Questions — PENSIONS AND ALLOWANCES.

Mr. Shinwell: asked the Prime Minister whether he will cause some inquiry to be made into the anomalies arising from the different payments made to the wives and children of men in the Forces and those undertaking training in munition production, the pension payments made to dependants of airmen and of soldiers, and the allowances to air-raid victims and their dependants, particulars of which have been sent to him; and whether he will consider the provision of allowances more uniform in character?

Mr. Attlee: The rates of pensions and dependants' allowances payable to the disabled private soldier or airman and to the disabled civilian worker are identical. The other payments to which the hon. Member refers are made in diverse circumstances and for diverse purposes, and there are reasons for such differences as exist. Nevertheless my right hon. Friend will have the matter looked at again to see whether any more elaborate inquiry is necessary.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOOD SUPPLIES (MINISTERIAL CONTROL).

Mr. De la Bé re: asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the uncertainties created by the dual control of the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Food, he will take steps to give one man the power to deal with the whole food position, together with the authority to make reservations of the necessary man-power for developing the maximum output of food from the farms?

Mr. Attlee: No uncertainty arises as to the respective functions of the Minister of Agriculture, who is responsible for home food production up to the point at which the produce leaves the farm, and the

Minister of Food, who is responsible for the control of all food supplies both home produced, after they leave the farm, as well as imported. Matters with regard to the reservation of man-power in all industries, including agriculture, are decided by the Government. In the cases of agricultural man-power, the views of the Minister of Labour and the Minister of Agriculture are, of course, taken into consideration.

Mr. De la Bé re: Is my right hon. Friend aware of what the Minister of Agriculture told us last week? Did he not say that spring is always important, and this year it is a matter of life and death? Why not give one man the power to see the whole thing through, instead of having this interminable muddle which goes on month after month?

Mr. Attlee: There is no muddle. There are very many important things going on all the time, and you do not solve them by giving them all into the hands of one man.

Mr. De la Bé re: In view of the great muddle that is going on, I propose to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Oral Answers to Questions — WAGES AND COMMODITY PRICES.

Sir Patrick Hannon: asked the Prime Minister whether he has considered the letter addressed to him by the President of the Association of British Chambers of Commerce emphasising the drift towards inflation owing to wages increases being followed by a rise in commodity prices; and whether he will make a statement on the policy of the Government in the provision of a check upon this tendency?

Mr. Attlee: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has received the letter to which my hon. Friend refers, and has arranged that the Association of British Chambers of Commerce shall have an opportunity of stating their views more fully to the Ministers concerned. The Government are, I need hardly say, impressed with the dangers of inflation, and since the outbreak of war have taken action in a variety of ways of prevent any uncontrolled rise in basic prices. It would, of course, be quite wrong to regard every increase in prices, whatever its nature and scope, as potentially inflationary; but close attention is paid to all significant


movements of prices with the view to applying appropriate checks in good time if any dangerous tendency develops.

Sir P. Hannon: Is my right hon. Friend not aware that for months past there has been a race between the rise in prices of commodities and the increase in wages, and could we not have an early declaration of policy on the part of the Government?

Mr. Attlee: The subject is far too complicated to be discussed by Question and Answer.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE.

DOMINION STERLING SECURITIES (REQUISITIONING).

Mr. De la Bé re: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in connection with the recent acquisition of securities by His Majesty's Treasury of Government of India sterling securities, he will give an assurance that it is not the intention of the Government to requisition in the same manner, under the Securities (Restrictions and Returns) Order, 1941, similar sterling securities of the South African and other Dominion Governments?

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir Kingsley Wood): No, Sir. It would not be in the national interest that I should give such an assurance.

Mr. De la Bé re: Can my right hon. Friend say whether it is proposed to take over the £100,000,000 5 per cent. Commonwealth of Australia and States Stock, repayable in 1945?

Sir K. Wood: No, Sir, I could not.

Oral Answers to Questions — GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS.

Sir Waldron Smithers: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has considered the Fourth Report of the Select Committee on National Expenditure, especially with regard to the cost plus type of contract, and what immediate action he proposes to take?

Sir K. Wood: The Treasury are considering, in conjunction with the other Departments concerned, the numerous recommendations made in this useful report. The question of "cost plus" contracts cannot, I think my hon. Friend will appreciate, be dealt with in isolation.

Sir W. Smithers: Does not the Chancellor realise that if he takes the public more into his confidence and tells them what steps he is taking and the results of those steps to secure and ensure wise expenditure, he will strengthen public confidence and induce the public to subscribe, even more liberally than they are now doing?

Sir K. Wood: That is a little outside the Question, but I do not know that I dissent at all from what my hon. Friend says.

Sir W. Smithers: Then why not do something?

Oral Answers to Questions — WAR DAMAGE COMPENSATION.

Mr. R. J. Taylor: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in paying compensation under the War Damage Act to persons of small means, pianos and sewing machines are considered a luxury and therefore not liable to rank for compensation; whether he will state the method of valuation, and when compensation is to be paid?

Sir K. Wood: No payments are being made under the War Damage Bill. The scheme which has been administered by the Assistance Board since June last is limited to the payment of compensation in respect of damage to essential articles. Pianos do not ordinarily come within this description. I am giving instructions that sewing machines shall be regarded as ranking for compensation. My hon. Friend will find a statement on the method of valuation in the reply given on 21st January to a Question by my hon. Friend the Member for North Lambeth (Mr. G. Strauss). Payments by the Assistance Board in respect of essential articles are made currently. The time of making payments in respect of non-essential articles will depend on the arrangements authorised by Parliament in the legislation now before the House.

Mr. Denville: When a piano is part of a person's livelihood, such as in the case of a music teacher, would not that rank for compensation?

Sir K. Wood: Yes, Sir, but my hon. Friend will observe that I said that ordinarily they would not rank for compensation.

Mr. R. Gibson: Is a list of these essential articles available?

Sir K. Wood: I am afraid not.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: Who will judge in these matters? Will it be an official of the Assistance Board?

Sir K. Wood: Yes, Sir, but, of course, I give instructions from time to time.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the rates of immediate and subsequent compensation payable by the Assistance Board to the various classes of persons whose property has suffered war damage, showing, separately, the limits allowable for furniture, tools, clothes, costs of removal, and retailers' stock-in-trade; and whether it is proposed to publish this information?

Sir K. Wood: As the reply is somewhat long, I am circulating it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the reply:

The scheme which is administered by the Assistance Board provides for the payment of compensation to persons within the appropriate income limits on the following basis: —
(1)Furniture. The value of the damage to the essential household furniture.
(2)Clothing. The value of the damage to essential personal clothing.
(3)Tools. The value of the damage to tools which are vital to the applicant's employment, subject to a limit in any one case of £ 50.
(4)Retailer's stocks. The value of the damage subject to a limit in any one case of £ 50.

In certain circumstances removal expenses are paid within a limit of £ 10. The advances which are made at the time of application are governed by the applicant's immediate requirements. Applicants are asked to state what these are, and their replies of course depend largely on the extent of the damage and the size of their families. As regards publicity, a brief description of the scheme is given in the folder entitled "After the Raid" which has been circulated throughout the country by the Ministry of Information.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNIVERSITIES (GRANTS).

Mr. Pickthorn: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can now

make a statement on the Treasury grant-in-aid to the universities and colleges during the coming financial year?

Sir K. Wood: Yes, Sir. The House will recall that, in view of the vital part played by the universities in the life of the community, the importance of maintaining as far as possible the standards of university education, and the essential contribution which the universities were making in a variety of ways towards the national effort, it was decided to maintain the provision for the current year at the same level as that in 1939, namely £ 2,149,000. These considerations have lost none of their force, and, despite the increasing strain on the national finances, the Government, after considering a report from the University Grants Committee, have reached the conclusion that if the universities are to continue their present contribution to the national effort, the provision for 1941 must be maintained at the existing level. They earnestly hope that local authorities will take similar action.

Mr. Woodburn: Since the universities are to receive considerable amounts of public money, will steps be taken to implement the Prime Minister's hopes that universities will be made available to all members of the public and not confined to any one section?

Oral Answers to Questions — INCOME TAX (BENEFICIARIES).

Sir P. Hannon: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has had under consideration the position of beneficiaries of legacies, alimony and other payments which are being made free of Income Tax; whether he is aware that many of these settlements were arranged when Income Tax stood at 4s. 6d. or 5s. in the and consequently such beneficiaries are placed in a privileged position in relation to the ordinary taxpayer; and whether he contemplates any change of financial policy so that such beneficiaries should contribute their fair share of the cost of the war?

Sir K. Wood: While, in the class of case to which my hon. Friend refers, an increase in the standard rate of Income Tax may have results not contemplated by the testator or settler, the Revenue is not in general affected. Income Tax is paid to the Revenue on the gross amount which, after deduction of tax at the standard rate for the time being, produces


the actual amount received by the beneficiary, and the gross amount constitutes the recipient's income from the particular source for purposes of Income Tax (including Surtax).

Mr. Loftus: Will my right hon. Friend also consider the fact that recently many directors of public companies have increased their remuneration considerably?

Oral Answers to Questions — PURCHASE TAX.

Mr. Messer: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that Purchase Tax is being paid twice over on certain manufactured articles which are made from materials on which Purchase Tax has already been paid; and whether he will take action to deal with this anomaly?

Sir K. Wood: I am aware that such representations have been made. This question arises mainly in connection with the position of small unregistered wholesalers and manufacturers, and I would accordingly refer my hon. Friend to the replies given on 3rd December and 19th December to my hon. Friends the Members for North-East Bethnal Green (Mr. Chater) and Dewsbury (Mr. Riley).

Mr. Messer: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that a ruling was given as a result of which financial arrangments were made, that subsequently that ruling was altered, and consequently great hardship was caused, and is there no way by which this difficulty can be overcome?

Sir K. Wood: Yes, Sir, I have been considering whether further steps can be taken.

Oral Answers to Questions — BLOOD DONORS.

Sir T. Moore: asked the Minister of Health whether there is any shortage of donors of blood: and whether a new national campaign is being started?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Miss Horsbrugh): I am advised that there is no general shortage of blood donors, but that in certain areas more are needed. Local campaigns are being organised in those areas.

Sir T. Moore: In view of the large number of people who are only too anxious to make this contribution to the

war effort, will my hon. Friend take whatever steps are necessary in the local areas concerned to make it widely known?

Miss Horsbrug h: Yes, Sir. Campaigns are being organised in the local areas, and the results are satisfactory.

Oral Answers to Questions — MEDICAL BENEFIT (ARMED FORCES' DEPENDANTS).

Sir Adam Maitland: asked the Minister of Health whether he has considered the resolution passed by the Kent local medical and panel committee, to the effect that medical benefit should be provided for dependants of men in the Armed Forces and that such benefit should be administered through the existing machinery of the insurance committees and not through public assistance committees; and whether he proposes to take the necessary action?

Miss Horsbrugh: Yes, Sir. The general question has been frequently considered by the responsible Ministers, and I cannot add anything to the full statement made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian and Peebles (Mr. Colville) when he was Secretary of State for Scotland on 23rd April, 1940. I am sending a copy of this statement to my hon. Friend.

Dr. Summerskill: Is the hon. Lady aware that returns on the cost of living in country areas show that the cost of medical attendance is disproportionately large, and does she not think that action is therefore long overdue?

Miss Horsbrugh: I think the hon. Lady is referring to a wider public. This question deals with the dependants of service men.

Oral Answers to Questions — METROPOLITAN BOROUGH COUNCILS (FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE).

Mr. Brooke: asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that, owing to the officially encouraged policy of evacuation, expenditure on air-raid precautions and war damage to property the financial position of Metropolitan borough councils is acute; and can he yet indicate what assistance, by way of grant, he is prepared to offer, so as to prevent the unfairness of severe rate increases concentrated upon those people who have not left London?

Miss Horsbrugh: My Department is in communication with the Metropolitan Boroughs Standing Joint Committee and the councils of certain Metropolitan boroughs on the subject. As to the second part of the Question, I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Tam-worth (Sir J. Mellor) on 12th February.

Mr. Brooke: Does that mean that the Metropolitan borough councils are to budget for a deficit, and cover that deficit by borrowing from the Exchequer?

Miss Horsbrugh: No, I think it means, as the hon. Member will see from the other reply to which I referred, that a consultation is taking place as to the best method of dealing with the position.

Captain Duncan: Is the hon. Lady aware that the time for deciding on the next rate is very close, and will this consultation very shortly be brought to an end?

Miss Horsbrugh: Yes, Sir, and consultation is now taking place with the Metropolitan borough councils.

Mr. Brooke: asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that, under the existing law rates will be payable by the Metropolitan borough councils to the London County Council and the Metropolitan police for the year commencing 1st April, 1941, in respect of premises already destroyed by enemy action, on which the borough councils cannot there fore collect any rates for that year; and as this is the season when rate estimates have to be made, will he initiate immediate action to remove this anomaly?

Miss Horsbrugh: My right hon. Friend is aware of the position to which my hon. Friend refers. He does not contemplate the introduction of amending legislation, but he is prepared to entertain applications for financial assistance from local authorities in cases where the loss of rateable value and rate revenue due to enemy action is such as to make this assistance necessary.

Oral Answers to Questions — SISAL PRODUCTION.

Mr. de Rothschild: asked the Under secretary of State for the Colonies what is the position with regard to the formulation of a scheme for the restriction of sisal

production; whether the co-operation of the Netherlands East Indies, Mexico, the Philippines and Portuguese East Africa is being sought; and whether, pending final agreement, a temporary scheme of restriction will be introduced?

The Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. George Hall): Such a scheme is under consideration, and the co-operation of other interested Governments is being sought. Pending further progress with these plans, production in British territory is, as an interim measure, being maintained on a restricted basis.

Oral Answers to Questions — ALBERT DOCK WORKERS (OMNIBUS FACILITIES).

Mr. J. H. Hollins: (for Mr. Thorne) asked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware that the Albert Dock workers are having much trouble in getting home because, on dog-racing days, people coming away from the last race at 4.10 p.m. take up all the places on omnibuses, leaving none for the men leaving work at 4.30 p.m.; and what action he proposes to take about this matter?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. Montague): I have made inquiries and find that the traffic from the stadium is cleared about half an hour before the dockers leave work and does not, therefore, interfere with the workers. Moreover, the trolleybus route terminates at the Albert Dock, and the dock workers board the vehicles before they reach the stadium.

Mr. Hollins: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I have had a letter of complaint, saying that on this occasion the trolley buses were turned round in Prince Regent's Lane, and also a letter from the undertaking, which states very definitely that they are prepared at all times to consult with the Minister of Transport? It is not their desire to interfere with the convenience of the dock workers. Have those consultations yet taken place, and should they not have first consideration?

Mr. Montague: The trolley buses to which the hon. Member refers are 12 extra buses which are turned round to deal with the stadium crowd. That is before the dock workers leave work.

Viscountess Astor: Does the right hon. Gentleman really think that it is in the spirit of the times to have 12 extra buses to deal with people who go to the dogs, and does he not think the Government ought to take a moral stand about this matter?

Mr. Montague: That is not a question for me to deal with, but for the Minister of Home Security.

Mr. Shinwell: Why should there be any kind of special facilities provided for the devotees of dog racing at a time of national emergency? Can my hon. Friend give a considered reply?

Viscountess Astor: Is it not about time the House of Commons did something, as the Government will not take action?

Mr. Montague: The merits of dog racing is not a question into which I am really entitled to go. It is solely a matter for the Minister of Home Security.

Mr. Shinwell: Does not my right hon. Friend understand that if transport facilities were not provided, these dog-racing meetings could not proceed, at all events to the same extent? Is he not aware of the reports in the Press the other day that the bookmakers at a particular South Coast greyhound track took more money in the course of one day's racing than they have taken on several occasions at Newmarket?

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL COMMISSIONS (UNPUBLISHED RECORDS).

Dr. Howitt: (for Sir John Graham Kerr) asked the Secretary to the Treasury in view of the fact that matters of historical interest and importance are frequently recorded in the unpublished records of the proceedings of Royal Commissions, what facilities exist for enabling members of the public to consult the full stenographic records of such proceedings in so far as they relate to sittings held in public by commissions which, having completed their labours, are no longer available to consider the desirability of publishing any part of their proceedings?

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Captain Crookshank): The arrangements for the preservation of unpublished reports of proceedings of Royal Commissions held in public vary in accordance with the

nature of the matters which they have had to consider, the period which has elapsed since they reported, and the views of each Commission on the disposal of its papers. I should not expect to find that Royal Commissions refrained from publishing reports of public proceedings at which matters of historical interest and importance had come before them. If there is any particular Royal Commission of which my hon. Friend wishes to consult the unpublished records, I will inquire whether they can be made available to him.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL NAVAL COLLEGE, DARTMOUTH (ENTRY SCHOLARSHIPS).

Mr. Ammon: ( by Private Notice) asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether any steps are in contemplation to enable boys from all classes of the community to enter the Royal Naval College, Dartmouth.

The First Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. A. V. Alexander): I have had this matter under consideration for some lime, and I am glad to tell my hon. Friend that, with the complete co-operation of my naval colleagues, I have had a scheme drawn up, by which the Royal Naval College at Dartmouth will, it is hoped, secure its share of the pick of the nation's youth on as wide a basis as possible. In addition to the present system of entry, which will continue unaltered, we are offering 10 scholarships to Dartmouth to candidates from grant-aided secondary schools, to be completed for at each entry— that is to say, thirty scholarships a year. The first entry to which this will apply will be that of September of this year. For this, candidates must be more than 13 years and 4 months, and not more than 13 years and 8 months, on 1st August of this year. Applications must be received by 10th May.
The intention is that the scholarships should take the form of assistance, depending on the parents' income, towards the expenses of training and maintenance. The poorest parents would be relieved of all expenses arising out of the boy's training, including cost of uniform, clothing and travelling expenses to and from his place of training; and including, if necessary, provision for the boy's maintenance during the holidays. The cadet will also


be supplied with the clothing required by him as midshipman. After this, he should be able to support himself. The grant of ten scholarships on each occasion will necessarily depend upon a sufficient number of suitable candidates presenting themselves. A scholarship will not be given to a secondary school boy who does not show himself superior to the average in intellectual ability. In addition, further scholarships, to a number of not more than ten on each occasion, will be given to boys not coming from grant-aided secondary schools who show themselves to be equal or superior in ability to the boys who have been given scholarships from the grant-aided secondary schools. It is intended also to give one scholarship on each occasion to the son of a rating or ex-rating who has not got one of the open scholarships, and who takes the highest place beneath them in the examination, provided that he shows himself superior to the average in intellectual ability.
The examinations on which scholarships are to be given require very careful consideration, since the Admiralty must secure that the candidates are fully equipped for the curriculum of Dartmouth, while at the same time, it is desirable that the boys from the secondary schools should be able to take the examination without any special tuition. We are making some alteration in the syllabus of the examination, which we hope will achieve this in the majority of cases. If necessary, however, in making the awards, I will take into consideration the age at which the candidate started his secondary course. All awards will be subject to the boy being medically fit, and also being found suitable for naval service by an Interview Board, who will be guided: by examination of the boy's record at school, by the medical report as to the soundness of his constitution, by his bearing at the interview. In case of any boy being found medically unfit or being rejected after the interview, the next boy on the examination list will be considered in his place. Full details of the arrangements and of the syllabus of the examination will be issued as soon as possible.

Mr. Ammon: While congratulating my right hon. Friend on the scheme, might I ask whether steps will be taken to ensure that there shall be privacy as regards the difference in social status,

and that it will not be published far and wide that some are going in as special-entry candidates?

Mr. Alexander: I am quite sure that the naval authorities will do everything possible to make the scheme successful. All questions of that kind will receive the most sympathetic consideration. But I must point out that scholarships are not to be confined to boys coming from grant-aided secondary schools, but will include boys from preparatory schools, and will be based on income as well. That means that there will be no special class of scholarship holders, and it is unlikely that there will be any distinction.

Sir Percy Harris: What is the total number of candidates admitted at Dartmouth each year?

Mr. Alexander: The number of entries at Dartmouth varies from time to time, according to the prospects of the Service and the number of ships likely to be employed during the period for which we are legislating. At the moment we contemplate 45 students for each of the three terms in each year, making a total of 135, of which we shall be giving 30 scholarships for secondary school boys, and up to 30 for other boys.

Commander Sir Archibald Southby: While congratulating my right hon. Friend upon the statement he has just made, might I ask whether any arrangements exist, or will exist, whereby the son of a naval officer who has retired, shall have special consideration as regards maintenance and entry into Dartmouth, in the same way as the son of a naval rating?

Mr. Alexander: My hon. and gallant Friend knows of the existence already of the King's cadetships. That will go on as before. We are not varying that scheme in any sense. Of course, they will also be eligible for the additional scholarships.

Sir A. Southby: Does not my right hon. Friend think that, as a special arrangement is being, quite rightly, made for the son of a rating, a special arrangement could be made for the son of one naval officer?

Mr. Alexander: I will give the matter further consideration, but my present impression is that the King's cadetships and the scholarships for preparatory school entries will meet the case.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: Will my right hon. Friend consider increasing the number of entries for boys who come from the homes of naval ratings? One does not seem a large number.

Mr. Alexander: One must have some balance in the scheme. My hon. Friend will no doubt know, as he once represented a Portsmouth constituency, that naval ratings, at great sacrifice to themselves, often send their boys to secondary schools. They will all be able to compete on that basis, while there will be another admitted with a lower place than those who have won the open scholarships.

Captain Marsden: I think the new arrangement will cause great satisfaction throughout the Service, and, as one who has been at Dartmouth, I know that it will be a success. My right hon. Friend, however, said that all financial help will terminate when the boys go to sea. A boy will want further assistance to enable him to keep up his position in the Navy until he really is in a position to stand on his own feet.

Mr. Alexander: The view of the Board of Admiralty is that it will be possible for any boy who is careful, to live upon his pay on the ship, if he is provided at the start with everything required in the way of equipment.

Captain Marsden: May I assure my right hon. Friend that it is impossible? I ask him, if he wants the scheme to be a success, to review this question.

Mr. Granville: Who will constitute the Interview Board, and where will the interview take place?

Mr. Alexander: I think the Board will be very similarly constituted to that which exists already for ordinary entrants.

Viscountess Astor: I hope that the First Lord will reconsider this matter of financial assistance, as it will be almost impossible for a candidate to live under the present arrangement.

Sir Joseph Lamb: In view of the fact that most of the secondary schools are situated in urban areas, will facilities be given also for boys from rural areas?

Mr. Alexander: I cannot add to the statement I have already made in that respect. I happen to know, having been

a county education officer for many years, that there are many secondary schools in rural areas.

Mr. Leach: Has the First Lord taken account of the fact that the age at which the examinations will be held is one at which the boys will not be half-way through the secondary school course? Will he make certain that the ordinary secondary school course will be duly protected?

Mr. Alexander: I said that we are arranging that the syllabus for the examinations shall be such that, as far as possible, the boys will be able to take the examination without special facilities.

BILL PRESENTED.

HOUSE OF COMMONS DISQUALIFICATION (TEMPORARY PROVISIONS) BILL,

"to make temporary provision for enabling persons required in the public interest to be employed for purposes connected with the war in offices and places under the Crown to be so employed without being disqualified for membership of the House of Commons,"presented by the Prime Minister, supported by Mr. Attlee, Mr. Greenwood, Sir Archibald Sinclair, and the Attorney-General; to be read a Second time upon the next Sitting Day, and to be printed. [Bill 14.]

ARMY ESTIMATES, 1941.

Estimates presented, — for the Army for the financial year 1941 [by Command]; referred to the Committee of Supply, and to be printed. [No. 49.]

AIR SERVICES (SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1940).

Estimate presented, —of the further Sum required to be voted for Air Services for the year ending 31st March, 1941 [by Command]; referred to the Committee of Supply, and to be printed. [No. 50.]

AIR ESTIMATES, 1941

Estimates presented, — for the financial year 1941 [by Command]; referred to the Committee of Supply, and to be printed. [No. 51.]

Preamble

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.]

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY.

Considered in Committee.

[Sir DENNIS HERBERT in the Chair]

CIVIL ESTIMATES, SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1940.

CLASS II.

DOMINION SERVICES.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1941, for sundry Dominion services, including certain grants in aid, and for expenditure in connection with Ex-Service Men in Eire, and for a grant in aid to Eire in respect of compensation to transferred officers.

Mr. Ammon: As we are passing Votes for millions of pounds without any proper discussion, it is as well to know what money is being expended in regard to this Vote. Am I right in saying that the supplementary sum of £ 10 in this case is not a token Vote, but is actually the amount of the new money required? I note that £ 2,790 is unexpended money on another account, and, therefore, perhaps the hon. Gentleman opposite can give the Committee some information. Will he tell us how it is that the expenditure of this extra money arises? Is not the settlement with the Government of Eire on a fixed basis or is there an understanding whereby it varies according to changes?

The Under-Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs (Mr. Shakespeare): As to the first point raised by my hon. Friend, it is the normal way to devote savings under one sub-head to that which is over-expended on another sub-head, but this compensation is described as a grant-in-aid, and for that reason Parliamentary sanction is necessary before we can spend more than has been authorised. As to the second point, the Committee would like to be reminded perhaps of the history of the matter. When the Irish Free State Government was established by the Treaty of 1921 it took over a large number of transferred civil servants, and the conditions of their pensions on retire-

ment were to be the same as the conditions of pensions on retirement of the ordinary civil servants under the United Kingdom Government. That was to be a charge to be met by the new Irish Government to be established. The Committee will remember that a year or two later there was a legal judgment— I need not go into the technicalities of it— by which more generous terms had to be offered to these civil servants, and there was agreement between the two Governments concerned that the Eire Government should meet the standard contribution and the United Kingdom Government the extra compensation which usually arises if there is an increase in the cost of living. In normal years there is a small sum payable in respect of the increased compensation, but in the year ending 31st March this year, when the Estimate was £ 4,200, we require £ 2,800 more, but, as the hon. Gentleman suggests, we are meeting the bulk of this out of savings under another sub-head and are asking Parliament for £ go to regularise the position.

Sir Patrick Hannon: I should like to know whether this Supplementary Vote includes the compensation or pensions payable to members of the Royal Irish Constabulary who were discharged or transferred owing to the interchange of Government after the Irish Treaty? If so,] would like to direct the attention of my hon. Friend to the unhappy position of a great many of the retired officers and men of the Royal Irish Constabulary, who have received only very small compensation. I do not know whether I am in Order in raising this point, but if the Supplementary Vote includes the compensation and pensions, I would like to call the attention of the Committee to the fact that the pensions awarded are now wholly inadequate in the circumstances in which these men retired from the service. There is nothing more deplorable in the relations between this country and Eire than the treatment of men who retired from the Royal Irish Constabulary on completion of the Irish Agreement. I would ask whether the consideration of His Majesty's Government could not be given to the unfortunate plight of a great many of these men. They rendered great service to the community in time of great difficulty, and they have not received


adequate compensation, retiring allowances or pensions, and many of them are, therefore, in a state of destitution. I would urge my hon. Friend to take such steps as he can not only for the recognition of these services to the country when these men were employed in dangerous work in Ireland, but to include in this Vote or some subsequent Vote some increase in the present remuneration appropriate to the services of these men.

Mr. Creech Jones: I would like to put a question to the Minister with regard to savings under this head. Do I gather that, in respect of Newfound land, social progress is being made? We were all considerably alarmed —

The Chairman: I would remind the hon. Member that the Committee cannot discuss the question of savings, used as an appropriation in aid, on these Supplementary Estimates.

Mr. Shakespeare: This Vote does not apply to the Royal Irish Constabulary but only to the ex-civil servants who retired or elected to retire before 1929.

Sir P. Hannon: There are numbers of officers of the Royal Irish Constabulary at that time who were civil servants, and why should they be treated differently from men in other services?

The Chairman: I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman has given an answer to the effect that the subject does not come under his Department, and so it cannot be discussed now.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1941, for sundry Dominion services, including certain grants in aid, and for expenditure in connection with ex-Service men in Eire, and for a grant in aid to Eire in respect of compensation to transferred officers.

COLONIAL OFFICE.

Resolved,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £ 21,000, be granted to His Majesty to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day 01 March, 1941, for the salaries and expenses of the Department of His Majesty's Secretary of State for the Colonies.

COLONIAL AND MIDDLE EASTERN SERVICES.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £ 691,500, be granted to His Majesty to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March,1941, for sundry Colonial and Middle Eastern services under His Majesty's Secretary of State for the Colonies, including certain non-effective services and grants-in-aid.

Mr. Ammon: I know that there are some things in this Vote which one cannot ask the Minister to deal with in a public statement. As regards the expenditure in respect of Palestine and Trans-Jordan, I presume one would be right in saying that this more or less arises out of what occurred when the former Secretary of State for War, now Foreign Secretary, paid a visit to the Near East, and that it is mainly concerned with matters of defence in those countries. As I say, I do not press my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary for the Colonies to give any details of this expenditure, but I think the Committee would like to have some general assurance concerning it. The item in relation to Malta is, I presume, also related to defence, and it would not be out of place on this occasion if we were to express not only our sympathy with the people of Malta but our admiration for the manner in which they have stood up to recent attacks. Anyone who has visited Malta as I have done once or twice can understand the severity of the test to which the people there have been subjected. Therefore there will not be any criticism, I am sure, of any action taken by the Government with a view to placing them in a better position of defence. I would like to give my hon. Friend an opportunity of affording the Committee as full information as is possible with regard to these matters. As I have said, on an occasion like this we are of necessity passing Votes involving millions of pounds without very much explanation. We realise that in the present situation that is unavoidable; but at the same time I think the Committee would desire to get the fullest information possible on this expenditure.

Mr. Creech Jones: With regard to British Honduras, I should like to know whether the additional sum required by this Vote represents the completion of the programme which the Colonial Office had


in mind some years ago. We are all conscious that very little progress has been made in the material development of this Colony. Having regard to its possibilities we are anxious that everything possible should be done to assist its economic development. Perhaps my hon. Friend when he replies will let us know whether the grant which is now to be made disposes of the whole programme or whether, under any other arrangements, there will be any further large development in this area. With regard to St. Helena, we are asked to vote a sum of £ 7,000 as an addition to the original Estimate. Many of us are much concerned about the position in that island. A great deal of publicity has been given to the existence of intense poverty and to the lack of means in the Colony to push on with any forward programme. From time to time, schemes of land settlement and of new subsidiary industries have been discussed. I would like an assurance that substantial progress is now being made; that some, at any rate, of the schemes into which the Colonial Office has inquired from time to time are now being applied, and that the programme launched a few months ago is well under way.

Mr. Price: I also wish to raise a point in connection with the item in respect of British Honduras. This concerns an additional grant for road development. I think it well on an occasion like this to call attention to the importance of internal development in a Colony like British Honduras. One of the great difficulties at the present time in such Colonies is that they have lost their oversea market and are, in some cases, depending entirely on one or two main exports which are affected by the war. It is essential, therefore, that there should be a far greater dependence on their own agriculture and that they should become more self-supporting.

The Chairman: I fear the hon. Member forgets that this is a Supplementary Estimate for a small addition to the original Estimate, in respect of a specific service, and does not afford any basis for discussing general administration.

Mr. Price: I had not intended to develop that line very far. I merely wished to express the hope, as this Vote concerns road construction and as road construction is an important aspect of internal development, that the Government are seeing to

it, that such development will be continued.

The Chairman: I am afraid the hon. Member cannot even go as far as that on this Vote. This concerns a small increase in a particular expenditure, namely, that on roads. We cannot even discuss the general policy of the road grant, but must confine ourselves to this small increase.

Mr. Price: I then content myself with expressing a hope that this will not be the last grant in connection with this matter.

Sir P. Hannon: I wish to supplement what has been said by the hon. Member for Shipley (Mr. Creech Jones) about St. Helena. I hope that this additional sum of £ 7,000 is to be employed for the general purposes of the programme, laid down some years ago, of help to be applied to this island. When I was there, housing conditions were being greatly improved, but the whole social and economic structure of the island was not in the past in a very happy position. The introduction of new works in relation to agriculture and so forth was, however, in progress and the Governor and his staff were devoting themselves with great energy to improving the economic condition of the island. I would like an assurance that the programme which was launched with so much hope to improve the conditions of the islanders is being carried out, systematically and successfully. With regard to Antigua, 1 hope the hon. Gentleman will be able to tell us in what respect the additional £ 10,000 is to be expended. When I was there very considerable embarrassment was felt about the sugar situation, although a great deal of work was being carried out for the improvement of conditions in the island. Now there is to be established, in collaboration with the United States, a base. I would like to know whether this £ 10,000 is to be employed to help the poorer section of the inhabitants of Antigua in the introduction of new crops and improvement of their conditions and to help forward the experimental work which was introduced by the late Governor.

Mr. Ammon: There are two points which I had intended to raise but had overlooked. One has been raised by the hon. Member who has just sat down, and it is with regard to the Vote for Antigua.


Does that arise out of a Royal Commission, or is it merely in connection with the preparation of an American base? I think the Committee is entitled to know whether we are starting to do some work in Antigua as suggested in the report itself. At the bottom of page 7 of the report there is a note indicating that the expenditure of the Minister will be removed from the purview of the Comptroller and Auditor-General and passed in the balance-sheet earlier on. It appears to me that that means that the House will lose a certain amount of control or supervision over the money concerned. With regard to the Vote of 200,000 in connection with Palestine and Trans-Jordan, that looks nothing more than a book transaction. The Colony, it seems, will pay if they can, but if they cannot, it will simply come on the whole Imperial Exchequer.

The Chairman: The hon. Member has asked a question to which I cannot allow an answer.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. George Hall): My hon. Friend who opened the Debate on these Estimates asked, in connection with the Vote for Palestine and Trans-Jordan, whether that was for defence. The full amount both for Palestine and Trans-Jordan is for defensive purposes. He also asked whether it was a book transaction. He will see in the Estimates the basis on which the Colonial Office makes payment to the War Office and Air Ministry in respect of the forces in Palestine and Trans-Jordan. Palestine is in principle liable for a proportion of the costs, specified under D I., payment of which is determined by the Palestine Government's ability to pay. Under this arrangement it is not proposed to call upon the Palestine Government to make any contribution at all during 1940. As a matter of fact, no contribution was made during 1939. This additional sum now required by the Air Ministry is confined to £ 20,000 and is in respect of recurrent expenditure due to increased personnel and additional charges for transport, occasioned by general circumstances in the Mediterranean. One-half of that amount is arbitrarily considered to relate to the defence of Palestine and the other half to the Trans-Jordan. The other £ 180,000 is in respect of works services. I

hope that I shall not be pressed for information about other items, because they are for defensive purposes.
My hon. Friend also referred to Malta, and, as is shown in the Estimates, Malta is asking for a very substantial sum. This Supplementary Estimate provides that £ 1,000,000 shall be spent, and it represents a grant-in-aid to Malta. Most of this sum is required to assist their Government and people to organise measures of protection for the population against the type of modern warfare with which we are, unfortunately, so familiar in this country. Under these circumstances it is not surprising that the trade and revenue of Malta should decline. Every effort is being made to secure many practical economies, and certain increases in taxation have been imposed, which should amount to £ 200,000 in a full year. Notwithstanding this, under the siege conditions prevailing there, the revenue will fall short of expenditure in by the £ 1,000,000 for which we are asking. My hon. Friend also referred to the courageous stand made by the Maltese at the present time. Hon. Members have seen from the Press that Malta has suffered over 300 air raids. The people of that Colony, like the people of this country, stand in the immediate path of the Axis Powers, and Malta has suffered, since Italy entered the war, the full fury of the Italian, and some German, attacks. However, the fortitude, endurance and determination of the Maltese people in face of these attacks have matched the qualities of our own people in this country and are in accordance with their own splendid traditions. Confident in the British Navy, Air Force and the military garrison in which the youth of Malta themselves are playing their full part, their people stand firmly behind the Government. Under the experienced and splendid leader, General Dobbie, they have endured hardships and are fully united in their determination to wage war with us until victory is assured. I am glad to have this opportunity of expressing today our admiration for the magnificent spirit with which the Maltese are facing their task and our complete confidence in their ability to meet every emergency they will be called upon to meet.
My hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Mr. Creech Jones) raised the question of St. Helena, which was also raised by my hon. Friend the Member for the


Moseley Division of Birmingham (Sir P. Hannon). The amount asked for in the Supplementary Estimate is for the purpose of continuing the improvements which both my hon. Friends have so much in mind, and I am pleased to record that in housing, settlement, agriculture and education progress is being made. During 1940 seven houses were built, and there were five under construction. We hope that more will be available. The amount of money asked for is for the purpose of paying the income of a qualified engineer who is proceeding with this work. Two thousand pounds is the increase in the floating cash balance owing to increased transactions.

Sir P. Hannon: Are we to understand that during the whole of 1940 only seven houses were built and that five more are in process of erection? Is that the whole of the building programme for two years?

Mr. Hall: That is the position as far as1940 is concerned. As the hon. Member knows, the island is a very small one. Conditions were bad, there was no public works department, and an organisation had to be built up. We hope that progress will now be made to complete the whole scheme.

Sir P. Hannon: House building has been going on for several years in St. Helena. The late Governor took a very active interest in it, and personally assisted in the designing and planning of the houses.

Mr. Hall: I am dealing only with 1940. With regard to the road in British Honduras, it is now completed, and the money asked for in the Supplementary Estimate is the only amount that is left outstanding. We trust that the road will be opened soon and that it will open up industry in that part of the country. As to the Supplementary Estimate in respect of Antigua, the money is not required for any scheme based on the recommendations of the Royal Commission. The Welfare Controller and the members of the welfare inquiry are at present in the West Indies, and we hope that as a result of their visit recommendations will be forthcoming soon. A question has been asked about the amount of £ 10,000 to be spent in Antigua. The trouble here is that no estimates have been received, and no figures are yet available, to show the

actual outgoings in 1940. We can only estimate the probable financial position. In June of last year, the Governor reported that the Presidency's finances were very much worse than was anticipated when the estimates for 1940 were framed. It was estimated that there would be a deficiency of approximately £ 28,000. We are providing in the Supplementary Estimate £ 10,000 of the £ 28,000, and the remainder will be provided for in the 1941 Estimates.

Sir P. Hannon: Are we to understand that this is a contribution towards the restoration of the financial stability of the island, and not for the economic development of the island?

Mr. Hall: That is so. It is to meet part of the expenditure incurred by the Colony for the purpose of economic development. Antigua has had rather a serious time. The depression in the sugar industry set in during 1930, and in addition, there was a severe drought in 1940. Both these things have had a very serious effect upon the economic life of the Colony. The amount of money here provided will assist in some restoration of the Colony's economic life.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding 691,500, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1941, for sundry Colonial an Middle Eastern Services under His majesty's Secretary of State for the Colonies, including certain non-effective services and grants in aid.

SITE FOR MOSLEM MOSQUE.

Motion made, and Question proposed,

"That a sum, not exceeding £ 10, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1941, for the purchase of a site in connection with the building of a Mosque and Islamic Cultural Centre in London."

Sir Stanley Reed: Our Moslem friends welcome this action by the Government with immense satisfaction and widespread approval, but they are very anxious that, if circumstances allow, the Mosque shall be erected somewhere near the heart of London. They trust that if it is at all possible the Government will obtain a site near the heart of the Metropolis.

Mr. Creech Jones: I wish to congratulate the Government on their very imaginative act in making this development possible. I fear that, although we are at the centre of a very great Empire, we approach many problems in an insular spirit. I think this act will be appreciated by a very considerable section of people living under the British flag, and I congratulate the Government on their foresight in the matter.

Mr. Graham White: I think this Vote is to be very much welcomed at this time. One cannot fail to notice that in discussions of our war aims, the main one is the maintenance of our Christian civilisation. Although that is an aim which nobody will question, it is a limited aim, when we realise that more people are concerned with a Moslem civilisation and a Hindu civilisation than are concerned with the Christian civilisation. For these reasons, I welcome this Vote.

Mr. George Hall: I wish to express the thanks of the Government for the kind sentiments that have been uttered in the Committee concerning this proposal. I will not explain the matter further, as the proposal has been so well received, but I should like to say that in agreeing to the proposal, the Government give their approval to a scheme which the late Secretary of State, the late Lord Lloyd, had very much at heart and to which he devoted much time and energy.

Question put, and agreed to.

FOREIGN OFFICE.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £,250, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1941, for the salaries and expenses of the Department of His Majesty's Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs and grants in aid of the Royal Institute of International Affairs and the British Association for International Understanding.

Mr. Ammon: I presume that this Supplementary Estimate really amounts to a winding-up of this Association, following very largely on the criticisms that were made in a recent Debate.

The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Butler): Certainly this means that no further Government money will be allotted to the Association, but it does not mean the winding-up of the

Association. I am glad to say that the Association has been able, in a variety of ways, to assure for itself, as I believe, a life in the future which will ensure the continuance of the publication of the "British Survey." This Survey awakened a great deal of interest and received a great deal of praise in a recent Debate, and therefore, it is satisfactory that in three ways— by an increased circulation of the Survey, by success in obtaining donations, and by a reduction in the expenditure on administration— it has been found possible to carry on the Association. This Vote really confines itself to repaying the Civil Contingencies Fund for the amount originally given to the Association. Therefore I think the Committee will agree that this is a satisfactory solution.

Sir S. Reed: I think we all welcome the statement that the work of this Association will not cease. Many of us have a high admiration for the work of the Association, and it was because we felt it was handicapped and weakened by a grant from Government funds that we thought it was inexpedient to continue the grants which had been proposed. This marks a complete severance of any financial connection between the Association and the Government, and I am sure the Committee will entirely approve of it.

Question put, and agreed to.

DIPLOMATIC AND CONSULAR SERVICES.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £ 291,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1941, for the expenses in connection with His Majesty's Embassies, Missions and Consular Establishments Abroad, and other expenditure chargeable to the Consular Vote; certain special grants and payments, including grants in aid; and sundry other services.

Mr. Ammon: I should like a little more information with regard to the British Council. At first blush one wonders whether, under present circumstances, there is any room for a continuance of the work of the British Council. I think I am right in saying when last we debated the work of this particular Council, which was also very dear to the heart of the late Lord Lloyd, who saw in it a great opportunity for spreading British culture and knowledge of the British language, it was communicated


that we had letters of appreciation from Rome and Bucharest. I imagine we are not getting any letters to-day, and that that avenue of its work is now closed; one might say it is closed everywhere, apart from the English-speaking races, where its work is hardly necessary. A good deal of the work of the Council was what one might call new sand propaganda which has now been passed over to the Ministry of Information. I should like to know what is the association between this Council and the Ministry of Information, and whether the officers of the Council are now being borne on the Vote of the Ministry of Information, or whether there are payments by the Ministry of Information not shown on its Vote which are really borne by the British Council. I think one ought to have that clarified, so that we may know clearly what is the total amount of expenditure. Is it not possible that the work of the two organisations is now overlapping, and that, at any rate for the time being, the British Council might be considered as moribund, while the Ministry of Information is carrying on the work which is necessary in these times? I do not put these points forward in any critical manner, but rather to find out the exact position. I should like the right hon. Gentleman to give us clear information as to the fine of demarcation between the two Departments, and whether or not the work of the Council has now actually ceased.

Mr. White: I should like to put one or two questions arising from what my hon. Friend the Member for North Camberwell (Mr. Ammon) has just said. Of course, it is fairly clear that on first sight there may be some possibility of competition or overlapping between the work of the British Council and the newly-established Ministry of Information. Although the functions and purposes of these two institutions are to some extent similar, they are not identical. The British Council stands for something which we hope will be a permanent institution— an attempt to express the virtues and characteristics of the British race for all time. If these functions were in any way confined to the Ministry of Information, not only for the present but after the war, the work of this Council would be seriously impeded and injured. It is an educational and cultural institution, and,

although I would not deny that the Ministry of Information could claim these characteristics as well, it would be fatal for the interests of the British Council, which is doing most valuable work in many parts of the world, if it was in any way tainted with the characteristics of propaganda. I should also like to ask whether these matters have already been considered. The late Lord Lloyd gave great energy and inspiration to the magnificent functions of the British Council, and it is not surprising, therefore, that these matters should be raised.

Sir S. Reed: I am sorry that I cannot agree with my hon. Friend the Member for North Camberwell (Mr. Ammon) in saying that this work comes within the scope of the Ministry of Information. It seems to me that it is as wide as poles asunder from the work of the Ministry of Information. We hope that the work of the Council will be carried on, not only during the war, but as a permanent part of our organisation for the future. Will my right hon. Friend give the Committee some information as to how the work is to be carried on, controlled and directed in the future? The Committee is well aware that the Council consisted in fact of a Council of one, namely, Lord Lloyd, with his dynamic energy. I should like my right hon. Friend to tell us what the Government have in mind in the way of control and direction of this work, and what are the character and attainments of the individual they hope to put at its head? If we could have an answer to these points, we should feel very much happier, realising the value of the work that the Council is doing.

Mr. Price: I am very glad to see that there has been an increase in this Vote. It indicates that the Government are taking this matter seriously. Along with other hon. Members, I should like to inquire how this money is being spent. It states in the White Paper that it is to promote abroad a wider knowledge of Great Britain, its language and cultural relations. Of course, one can clearly see the line of demarcation between cultural education and propaganda, and one assumes that propaganda is within the scope of the Ministry of Information and that cultural education falls to the British Council. But I think the Committee might ask in what way the money is being spent. Is it on the development of lectures, the distri-


bution of literature in these countries—not very easy to do, I should imagine, in these times—and wireless talks? There is another thing that ought not to be lost sight of but ought to be developed, it seems to me, in regard to cultural education. I refer to films, and more particularly documentary films. This is a kind of cultural work which could be of enormous value to our war effort in explaining to various countries our life here and our objects in this war. I believe that work has been done in this connection in India. Many documentary films of industry have gone out. I want to know whether similar work has been done in the other countries dealt with in this grant. I believe there is nothing that could assist our war effort more than the development of documentary films, and I should like to know whether anything is being done in this direction.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore (Ayr Burghs): I was somewhat disturbed by the impression gained by the speech of the hon. Member for North Camberwell (Mr. Ammon). His proposal, as far as I could see it, was that the time had come for the fusion of the British Council with the Ministry of Information. I, like others who have spoken, think it would be a grave error. As I see it, the functions of the two bodies are so entirely different, except on one or two very minor details, that it would be contrary to our very best interests and the interests of the future peace to which we are all looking forward if such a suggestion were adopted. As I see it, the Ministry of Information has a very definite work to achieve, which it had begun to do with some effect. As I see its function, it is to give hot news, to answer unfounded propaganda from hostile sources, to refute lies from wherever they come and, of course, to state our case. It is purely political as far as I recognise the word, whereas the British Council is a cultural organisation formed for the purpose of persuading our way of life and our way of thought on other countries and showing them that our ideals have something so intrinsically good in them that others might with advantage follow our example and thereby ally themselves, not politically or militarily, but with our way of thinking. It would be a policy of despair either to fuse the British Council with the Ministry of Information or to wind it up. It

would admit straight away that, because a few misguided countries had fallen victims to the guile or threats of the enemy, therefore there were no other countries who were still relying on Britain to give them a lead both in thought and in words. So I trust that the Committeee and the Foreign Office will not yield to any persuasion in the matter of fusing the two organisations or winding-up the British Council. I would, however, ask one thing. Will my hon. Friend bear in mind the urgent necessity of appointing a suitable and worthy successor to the late Lord Lloyd? There are few who are possessed of his amazingly vital push and go, and he will be very difficult to replace, but it largely depends on the choice whether the British Council will be able to function during the remainder of the war and be ready to fulfil the even bigger task which will fall to it after the war.

Mr. Creech Jones: I should not like to say anything derogatory to the British Council, because I agree with its purpose and its general objects, but on an occasion such as this I think one may be forgiven for a little healthy scepticism with regard to certain of these activities. It receives a considerable sum of money from the British taxpayer. We are now being asked to vote something like £ 200,000, but, although many Members are able to speak about the excellent work that it is doing, we, and certainly the public outside, know very little of the range of its activities. The last time the matter was discussed the point was made that it would help the House if from time to time reports were published of what it is doing. It is true that a report appears now and again, but, from inquiries that I have made, these reports are very much delayed, and if one desires fairly up-to-date information, we are unable to discover it except by application to the Council itself. There is a great facade of committees which, as far as I understand, never meet. Distinguished names are used, giving the Council a very formidable appearance, but I understand that very little effective committee work is done and that for all practical purposes these advisory committees do not function and the whole direction of the Council is limited to one or two persons at the very top.
If we are voting money, I suggest that we should know what the future direction


of the Council is to be and how it is to be controlled. We hear from time to time of some very extraordinary activities. A little while back we were informed that it had taken financial responsibility for the publication of a newspaper in Cyprus. Presumably it would make what profits there were but would stand the loss, if there were losses, in respect of the paper. Then one reads of extraordinary missions to various parts of Europe, hobnobbing with dictators and mixing with quite the wrong people. If this Council exists for the purpose of spreading British culture abroad, ft ought to be more widely based, and something more representative of British life and thought and ought to be permitted to go to foreign countries and to express to the people the pulsating life of our country. One is sometimes disturbed as to the sort of dilettante people who are given the responsibility of lecturing on British economic problems, culture and social life to the people overseas.
A further point that I would like to make in regard to the British Council is the curious absence of effective contact with our own Colonial peoples. It is true that the Council exists to do certain educational work, and that it founds scholarships to enable people to come to this country, but our Colonial peoples are virtually cast into outer darkness and no facilities are provided for them to see something of British institutions and social life. Although frequently they are struggling and blindly groping along in order to make their own movements, we do not provide them with facilities through the British Council for that knowledge to be imparted to them.

The Chairman: The hon. Member is now dealing with something that is outside the original Vote. I allowed the Debate to be very wide, but the hon. Member must deal with the work of the British Council necessitating the increased expenditure.

Mr. Creech Jones: I will put what I want to say in the form of a question. We are asked to vote £ 200,000. We have not the details as to how it is to be expended, but presumably part will be spent on scholarships overseas or in enabling representatives of other countries to come to this country. Will some of this money be

made available for representatives of British Colonial peoples to come to this country and see something of the working of British institutions, and will facilities be provided for representatives of the British trade union or co-operative movements to go to other countries and to our Colonies in order that a more representative picture of British life, cultural institutions, social movements and economic organisation and development shall be presented to them?

The Chairman: If the hon. Member had put his question in one sentence, I should not have interrupted him, but he is now trying to debate something which is outside the Vote.

Sir Henry Morris-Jones: I should like to endorse what was said by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Ayr Burghs (Sir T. Moore) with regard to the question of a successor to the late Lord Lloyd. My right hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs will probably consider that one of the best successors would be somebody who had been an ambassador abroad. I hope that he will not take that view. Some of our ambassadors have not done so extraordinarily well that immediately on retirement they must of necessity take charge of a most important office to succeed that brilliant Colonial administrator whose loss we mourn and whose place will be difficult to fill. I want to warn my right hon. Friend, if he has anything to do with this appointment, that there are ex-ambassadors in this country who may be capable and brilliant men, but some of them have not been very distinguished in brilliant efforts —

The Chairman: We cannot discuss the qualifications of our ambassadors on this Vote.

Sir H. Morris-Jones: I have a fear at the back of my mind that when this appointment is made some ambassador will be selected, and I trust that it will not be so. I am sure that the Committee does not grudge this money. The British Council has done splendid work. One rather wonders, however, where at the moment its work will be done, because there are so few countries outside the English-speaking countries where it can function. It did some substantial work in the Balkans, and let us hope that


in the next few days we may see a little fruit arising from it. There is plenty of scope in the Balkans for admiration and appreciation of British culture and what it means to the world in future. A note under the Vote says that any balance of the sum issued which remains unexpended on 31st March, 1941, will not be liable to surrender to the Exchequer. Why should this sum be carried on?

The Chairman: That question has already been settled and cannot, therefore, be debated.

Sir Annesley Somerville: In listening to the hon. Member for Shipley (Mr. Creech Jones), I was struck with the need of even a larger Vote for the British Council. He asked why the Council did not do this or that, but it is doing exactly what he asked that it should do. It is obvious that the hon. Member has not a large knowledge of what the Council has been doing. Under the late LordLloyd it had extended its activities in many directions and in a most useful way. We are trying to do what the Germans have been doing for some time. They have been spending £ 4,000,000 a year in extending the knowledge and influence of Nazi culture. I am sure that the hon. Member for Shipley does not approve of that culture. We are spending only a few hundred thousands in extending the knowledge of British life and culture. The hon. Member asked why the British Council did not exhibit to the countries where it is established a picture of British life, trade union activities and so on, but that is exactly what the Council has been doing. It has been sending out a succession of lecturers and teachers, one of its objects being to extend the knowledge of our language in various countries, and they try to put before the people among whom they live a picture of the kind of life we live here and of our objects. I listened a little time ago to a lecture by a gifted lady who had been on a lecturing tour in the Balkans, and she showed how this country was looked at in the Balkans, how, as a result of the work that the British Council was doing, schools and institutes were established in Yugoslavia, Bulgaria and Greece, and how the young people of those countries were eagerly joining the classes. That is all for the good. Such work is also done in Portugal. I regret that there is not a wider knowledge of what the

British Council has done. If that knowledge were more widely extended we should realise what a debt we owe to that great man who has just passed away, Lord Lloyd.

Sir Malcolm Robertson: There seems to be a lack of understanding of what the British Council is, what it has done and what it is meant to do. Unfortunately, I was once an Ambassador, and, therefore, I do not know whether I should blush or should pale before the remarks of the hon. Member for Denbigh (Sir H. Morris-Jones). Those of us who spent a great many years of our lives abroad know full well that until recent times the spread of British culture and a knowledge of British institutions, of the British educational system and of the English language were left out of our imaginations abroad. We left it to the Germans, to the Italians, and to the French. British institutions hardly existed, except for a few wholly inadequate schools in various parts of the world, which were generally run by governesses brought out from England by the natives of the particular country, governesses who proved unsatisfactory and often set up schools of their own. Otherwise, there was no system of spreading a knowledge of our culture, of our literature, of our art, of our science. Nothing was done. Finally, a small undertaking was started in Buenos Aires which was called the Anglo-Argentine Society of English Culture. It started in a small way, but within a year or two it was found there was an enormous demand, and 4,000 or 5,000 pupils joined.
Then came this British Council, which has done admirable work. Hon. Members seemed to confine their ideas to Europe and the Balkans. May I, with the greatest possible respect, point out to them that there is a very large area in this world known as South America. In that part of the world we have gigantic interests, and there the British Council is doing admirable work—starting schools, subsidising schools, setting up associations of English culture; and that is doing us a great deal of good. The same thing is happening in Central America. The British Council is trying to extend its activities all the world over. Great lecturers are sent out. Why the trade union movement or any other social


movement in this country should not also send out its representatives I do not know. We are only too anxious that the countries of the world should know what we in this country are doing, what our civilisation stands for, and what our social progress is, and that is the object and aim of the British Council. It is an admirable institution. I look forward with considerable eagerness to the appointment of a successor to Lord Lloyd, whose name has been mentioned with such admiration, and such justified admiration, in the Committee to-day. It is a big job, and it is a job to which, I am perfectly certain, the right hon. Gentleman and the Foreign Office have given the closest and most anxious attention, but I would devote to it not £200,000 or £300,000 but as many millions as the Germans have devoted to their so-called cultural societies.

Mr. Kenneth Lindsay: I am sorry that I did not hear the opening speech, but I want to say that there should be no question of the work of the British Council being confused with the work of the Ministry of Information. That fundamental point ought to be made absolutely clear. I spoke in one of the first debates on the British Council, and, like the last speaker, I am aware of the lamentable lack not so much of propaganda as of any adequate reflection of British literature or of British life in whole regions of the world. I went with Mr. Guedella on the first mission to South America, where we found a complete absence of any knowledge of our own country's contribution towards the freedom of those countries. It was quite unknown among the people there. In Europe, apart from the Institute in Paris and a tiny institute in Florence—which at first, I think, was privately subsidised —there was up to a few years ago literally nothing. Since then we have at any rate got up to a figure of £200,000 in expenditure. I do not quite know what the criticism which has been made to-day amounts to, but I imagine that everyone is agreed that this is a good work but that there is a difference about the word "culture." To talk of spreading British culture sounds, at first, rather aggressive. In fact, it has to be done with very great subtlety. I understand that the representation on the Council is all-party, but

I agree with the hon. Member for Shipley (Mr. Creech Jones) that it is very easy to give a conception of British culture which starts with public schools and established institutions in this country and more or less ends there.

Sir A. Somerville: It is not done.

Mr. Lindsay: I am glad to hear that, because there is a very rich social life which lies quite outside those bounds. It is one of the aims of the British Council to give a complete mirror of the life of this country, and it is true that it is not in everyone's experience to have that complete mirror. For myself, there are great and important tracts of this country about which I know nothing, and am learning everyday. Therefore, at this time, when there is so much talk of "new orders," when accusations are being made day by day about our plutocratic system of education—as is being done by Hitler and others on the Continent, with some justification—when distorted pictures of this country are being sent round the world, it is of the greatest importance that we should be certain that it is a representative picture that comes from this country.
Would my right hon. Friend tell the Committee something of the educational work among foreigners in this country which is being done by the British Council? It is, I believe, of great importance, but it is unknown to most people. Would he also say how far he thinks the literature—I am mildly interested in it myself because I have occasionally tried to write little things— which goes out is really giving a picture which can be understood by the fairly ordinary reader in South America and in other parts of the world? I think there is a tendency in the literature, and perhaps in the films, to keep a very high standard, and while I am all for that, it may be a standard which is not getting down to the life of the people in various countries. Also, could the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether anything is being done to promote schools? The subject was mentioned by the right hon. Member for Mitcham (Sir M. Robertson). I well remember the complete absence in Egypt and elsewhere in the old days of any such schools and universities. They were entirely French. There was a complete lack of understanding of the British


point of view on a great many subjects. There was an Italian propaganda covering every phase of social life. It was in this sort of world that the world war started.

Sir A. Somerville: At the beginning of this century there were two schools in Cairo, one was the Tewfikieh and the other was the Khedivieh, of which the headmaster was an Englishman, and in those schools there was no lack of knowledge of English ideas and English life, so it is not quite correct to say there was an absence of contact between this country and other countries in that respect.

Mr. Lindsay: I am aware of that one school, and also of the troubles which had to be gone through in order to get money to keep it going. In regard to the universities, they were entirely in the hands of the French. The French language was used. There is a very real need to spread the things to which I have been referring. We are dealing at the present moment with the more permanent work of the British Council. Whatever happens to the Ministry of Information—its life will probably end with the war, at least, some of us think it should—the British Council is now a permanent part of the structure, partly of the Foreign Office and partly in relation to overseas trade, and it should export the best we have in this country. I would like to feel —

The Chairman: We are having a very wide Debate, but I must ask the hon. Gentleman not to develop the line of argument which he has just begun.

Mr. Lindsay: Then I will conclude by saying that the British Council will become a permanent feature of three or four Departments covered by the British Government, and that very great care will have to be exercised in the leadership of the Council in future. We have the very interesting experiment in the case of the late Lord Lloyd, who devoted so much time to it. The way in which the experiment is developed in the future will depend very much on the kind of person who leads it, and the range of his experience. I am sure that the Government will give very treat care to his selection.

Miss Rathbone: Like most other speakers, I do not grudge the money which we are vot-

ing for the British Council. Even now, when the amount has swollen from the original £ 50,000 to nearly £ 200,000, to every farthing we contribute in this country to the British Council, or in any other way to foreign propaganda, something like £ 1 is spent by the German propaganda machine. I would like to voice, very briefly, a criticism of the past and a question as to the future. My criticism of the British Council has always been as to why it is such a hush-hush body. Hon. Members have reproached the Council in a way that showed ignorance of its work; if we are ignorant of the work of the British Council, the British public must be much more ignorant. Whose fault is that? It is not the fault of the Council itself. The very title of the Council is of a hush-hush nature. Usually, a title suggests the objective of the body in question and does not merely describe it as a council or a society. We do not get Parliamentary reports of the British Council, and one hardly ever hears a broadcast about it. So far as I know, there is no widely circulated or easily accessible form of information which shows exactly, year by year, what the Council is doing, where it has been doing it, and how, and that is a very great pity.
The remark which was made by the right hon. Member for Mitcham (Sir M. Robertson)was rather interesting. Referring to a remark made by a previous speaker that it would be a good thing if propaganda were done about the trade-union movement in foreign countries, he asked what was to prevent trade unions from doing their own propaganda, just as though the British Council's object was not to spread a knowledge—

Sir M. Robertson: I did not say "propaganda." I said "information," which is cultural. The whole object of the British Council is to give information of our social, intellectual, scholastic, and other systems.

Miss Rathbone: I do not use the word "propaganda" as though it were something nasty. There is hardly any information which is not, in a sense, propaganda. If you think things, and believe they are true, you try to spread the information. Let us use the word "information." My criticism is that the work of the British Council has always


seemed rather to assume that it should spread British culture in the more humanistic sense, our literature, art, music and ideas, but not just those things which are the special contribution of Great Britain to the world's store, such as our democratic ideals, our sociological development and so on. I met this criticism a few years ago when I happened to be on a tour in Rumania, Jugoslavia and Czecho-Slovakia. In all those countries, and especially in Rumania, I heard a good deal about the British Council. The comments by the natives of the countries were all very polite and appreciative, but there was always a sting in the tail of the appreciative references.
It was often conveyed to me, during long talks with professors and sociological experts, that the British Council was sending them British music played by British artists, as well as lectures on British art or poetry, and that while that was all very interesting it was not particularly associated with Great Britain. They were not things which had a definite, national colour, such as British institutions, and democratic and industrial experience. These were the things about which those people wanted to know. They did not so much ask for singing lessons or concerts as for carefully calculated efforts to bring home to the people of less developed countries, only recently experimenting with democracy, facts to show what democracy was, how it had grown, and what it aimed to do for the world. I cannot help thinking that, during the last few years, much of the failure which led to the present war is because we had not, somehow, managed to impregnate those countries to which democracy was new with the knowledge of what we meant by democracy and how democracy should try to build itself.
I do not know enough of what the British Council is doing in war-time, but I do know something about, and deeply appreciate, the work which it is doing in this country. It is, for example, sending libraries to the internment camps and is organising cultural facilities for refugees in internment and not in internment, admirable and excellent work. Unfortunately, I missed much of the first speech of

the right hon. Gentleman, and I know very little of the work which the British Council is now doing abroad. I realise that it can necessarily be doing very little in enemy, or enemy-occupied, countries, unless it takes part in—and I am vague of how the two efforts would inter-act—the propaganda in enemy-occupied countries. In those countries which are nominally neutral it is important to carry across that part of our culture which has a direct bearing upon our war effort. That, again, centres round the question of what we stand for, what liberty means for us and why it is so dear. We must tell how our habit of liberty and our democratic institutions have grown to be what they are. I hope that the British Council will come into the open and tell the public, who are paying the bill, exactly what are its activities.
Lastly, there is a point which has some bearing on the matter, namely, as to who will be the future chairman of the Council. I share the admiration which has been expressed of the late Lord Lloyd, and also of Lord Eustace Percy, who preceded him as chairman, but, if I may say so with deep respect, they are not typical specimens of the side of British life to which I have been referring. I hope that the next choice will be someone equally representative of the best aspects of British life, but slightly more directly representative of what I may call British democracy and progress in sociological and democratic experiment.

Mr. Woods: I would like to make an appeal to the Minister to give us more information about the British Council. Whatever the Council may have done abroad, it does not seem to have done much at home. The enlightening comments which we have had from one or two hon. Members who have had personal experience were to some extent a revelation. We depend upon reports which are invariably very belated, and there is no excuse for being so much behind the times in keeping the Committee and the country informed. The last speaker brought out a point which makes it more vital than ever that the Committee should be in receipt of up-to-date information. The Council was founded in peace-time and, like all such councils, they seem to have had a routine form of spending money. Suddenly the whole world picture is changed, and we


are plunged into war. Although the Committee may not object to voting this additional sum, at the same time it has had no information as to how the Council is adapting itself to the new situation.
I would like to associate myself with the appeal made by the hon. Member for Shipley (Mr. Creech Jones), namely, that the Colonial aspect of the Council's work should receive particular attention. Whatever may be the opportunities of carrying on our educational work abroad, the hope for the future must be based on this country and America and their democratic institutions. The Council has made a substantial contribution to building up that community of ideals and ideas upon which democracy rests. In that connection, the aspect which the last speaker emphasised is one to which the Council should give particular attention. When the history of our times comes to be written I believe that the great gifts from this country to the world will be recognised as those twin democratic organisations, the trade union and Co-operative movements. In Nazi countries they have been exterminated or so mutilated as to have lost their beneficent capacity, but they are the great contributions towards welding together the human population of this planet with a common ideal. So far as I know, although there may be representatives of these organisations on the Council, the Council has given very little attention towards "putting across" the contribution which this country has made for the good of mankind and the peace of the world.
I am particularly interested in the Cooperative movement, and, whatever the Council may have done to make known throughout the world the nature and activity of this great social organisation, which in this country embraces about 10,000,000 people, there is very little knowledge abroad apart from that which is given by the organisation itself. The time has come when it should be realised that it is not propaganda but information which is wanted. Not only do we get persona requests for information, but we get deputations from various countries, particularly from America, to seek information. When there is that thirst for information the British Council should make that contribution.
It seems to me from the reports which we get that the actual functioning, ex-

penditure and control of the Council have been vested too much in the hands of an individual. I do not know how frequently the Council meets or how far the Council is divided into committees to deal with various aspects of the work; that is the kind of information which should be given, so that although there may be satisfactory work in one Department, if there are other Departments which are lagging behind, we may be informed so that we as a Committee or a House of Commons may know which activities are falling below the mark.

Mr. Muff (Hull, East): My hon. Friend has referred to the British Council and to some of its personnel. I would remind him that one of the most distinguished members of the Committee is also one of the leading members of the Co-operative movement. At any rate, he was until he undertook the office of First Lord of the Admiralty. I hope he is still there. In reply to the hon. Lady the Member for the Combined Universities (Miss Rathbone), I think our fault in past years has been that the British Council has been nobody's baby. I, for one, although I have been in this Committee for six or seven years, had never heard of its work until I had the great privilege of listening to the report from Lord Lloyd, and I agree with hon. Members who have spoken that that report should have been in the hands of every Member of Parliament and should even have been given to the public. The late Lord Lloyd adopted the child and it became a most lusty infant. I would say to the hon. Lady, though, that we cannot compete with the blatant shriekings of German and Italian propaganda, even in their broadcasts in which a certain type of story goes down with a certain type of person who is listening. I would prefer that we went on the same lines as those which I observed for myself in the British Pavilion at the World's Fair in August, 1939, when I found that the British Pavilion had received twice the number of visitors— nearly 2,000,000— than any other pavilion in that great World's Fair. When I went in and saw the long queue waiting at one place almost reverentially, I went with curiosity to see what they were doing. They were simply waiting their turn in order to see the Magna Charta which was there displayed. That was the type of British propaganda which has struck the imagination of the Americans.


I also found—and this is the type of propaganda in which we ought to indulge —that in one part of the Pavilion there was an exhibit showing what we were doing in a certain part of Yorkshire with nursery schools and with primary education. There was not so much about the universities, because I suppose Oxford and Cambridge had little to say about themselves. But that quiet restrained effort of the British people as displayed in that Pavilion had attracted so many people— twice the number that went in to any other pavilion— that the authorities had had to get the steps of the front entrance to the Pavilion re-cemented, because they were worn away by the devotees who wanted to see something of British culture. That was American workmanship; of course, if it had been British workmanship, I agree that the steps might have lasted longer. But that is by the way; what I am driving at is that the British Council has no need to apologise for its existence, but I think that the British people would apprecitae what has been done by the British Council if they were told more about it. I do not know what the British Council is doing at the present time— I hope it has not put up the shutters — but I hope that it will be by our works and not simply by blatant propaganda that we shall show to the world the worth of British institutions. I agree that we can make much more use of such efforts, restrained but effective, which have been put forward in the past by this most excellent institution.

Mr. Butler: The Committee has listened to an interesting Debate on the subject of the British Council. We have had a series of speeches in favour of the British Council's work, notably by the right hon. Member for Mitcham (Sir M. Robertson), and the hon. Members for East Birkenhead (Mr. White), Aylesbury (Sir S. Reed), Ayr Burghs (Sir T. Moore), Kilmarnock (Mr. Lindsay) and Windsor (Sir A. Somerville), and we have had a series of speeches none the less helpful because of their criticism from other hon. Gentlemen who have raised points with which I hope to deal in the course of my reply. I propose to give the Committee a little further information about the British Council, since there has been a request for it, but I will endeavour not to stand for too long a period between the Committee and the further Business of the day.
A general tribute has been paid to the work of Lord Lloyd in connection with the British Council. I do not think there was any work which Lord Lloyd did which was nearer to his heart, or in which his personality stood out more vividly. He had a unique experience in the Near and Middle East which made him particularly suitable to be the Chairman of the Council. Expressing, I believe, the feelings of those who work for the Council, I can say that nowhere have his associates and friends been left with deeper feelings of regret at his death. About the only time the British Council has felt cast down was when his chairmanship was brought so abruptly to an end. I do not at all disagree with the statements that have been made to the effect that there is a great work waiting for his successor, but I am sure the Committee will excuse me if I do not go any further into that question to-day. I will, however, say that my right hon. Friend and those who are interested in this matter will no doubt read with interest the observations made by Members of the Committee as to the way in which this work should be carried on. Therefore, this Debate will have been valuable when this important decision is taken. I must, however, make it perfectly clear that the British Council is an all-party body; it does not exist for any sort of political reason, nor has it any political bias whatsoever. It includes representatives of all parties, and you have only to read the list of members of the Executive Council to see from what wide ranges of interest representatives are drawn. I think it is essential to make it quite clear that the picture of Britain which the British Council seeks to present abroad is a real and genuine picture of Britain as a whole. There is no doubt whatever that such movements as were referred to by the hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. Woods) have stood the British name in good stead in the past and will stand it in even better stead in the future. That is not forgotten by those who manage the affairs of the British Council. In fact, the object of the Council and of its late chairman was to make the name of Britain known and respected abroad, and the name of Britain has never been one which could be interpreted in a narrow or shallow way.
The hon. Member for North Camber-well (Mr. Ammon) wondered whether, in view of the restricted number of countries in which the British Council can operate, it has now sufficient scope for its activities. It is true to say that after the German invasion of certain countries and the entry of Italy into the war the field in which the Council could operate was obviously limited, but I wish to give the Committee a few short but simple examples of the growth of the work of the Council during this year. In particular there has been a great growth in Latin America. No fewer than 15 new anglophile societies have been started there, and I feel convinced that that work is one which will be of great value in the future, considering our great interests in that part of the world. There has also been a large increase of the Council's work in the Balkans, to which I propose to refer when I consider the work of the Council in more detail. There has also been a very distinct increase in the work of caring for foreigners in this country. This was an aspect of its work to which the hon. Member for Kilmarnock referred. The Council has been responsible for setting up and running a Polish House, to the work and influence of which the Polish authorities have constantly paid tribute. Only last month the King of Norway and his entire Government paid a visit to the Polish House. The Czechoslovak institute, which was opened by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary at the end of last month, is also a special care of the Council.
There is also the work which is being done, and which was referred to by the hon. Lady the Member for the Combined English Universities (Miss Rathbone) for those in internment camps, in regard to caring for refugees and the provision of literature. In Liverpool, for example, there is a British Council House which will centralise all the educational and cultural work among Allied nationals in the Liverpool area. There are centres for seamen, in particular the Norwegian Seamen's Centre, and there is a series of schools, about which the hon. Member for Kilmarnock asked a question, in various parts of the country for the children of Allied nationals. Perhaps one of the most remarkable pieces of work which the Council has been able to do has been the continuation of the "Institut francais,"

the French Institute which, up to the collapse of France, was receiving a subsidy from the French Government. That, of course, was cut off, and now the Institute receives a grant from the Treasury through the medium of the British Council, and we hope that the centre in South Kensington will be a real centre for the elements of French life in London. The importance of that sort of work cannot be over-exaggerated.
The work of the Council is perhaps more extended than some of us have realised. In reply to the hon. Member for Shipley (Mr. Creech Jones), I would say that the last quarter's account of the work of the British Council is in the Library, and I have no doubt the hon. Member will repair any deficiency by reading it carefully. I have specially arranged to place this document there, because I think that hon. Members in the past have not perhaps had sufficient facilities to enable them to appreciate the whole work of the Council.

Mr. Creech Jones: Are there published annual reports?

Mr. Butler: There are published annual reports, to which I can refer the hon. Member.

Miss Rathbone: Would the right hon. Gentleman ask the Council to consider publishing a threepenny or sixpenny booklet giving an informative account of the activities of the Council, which would be available to the whole of the public, and not only to Members of Parliament?

Mr. Butler: I will certainly do that. I will also make available in the Library for hon. Members information about what the Council do already; and if I think the information can be improved, I will look into the matter. The Council have a very able Press officer; and, no doubt, he will take note of the points of view which have been expressed.
I might now give a short account of the work which has been done in the Middle East. I will take up the point of the hon. Member for Shipley about the work done in the Colonial Empire. I will start by describing what has been happening in Egypt. Besides the large institutes in Cairo and Alexandria, there are smaller ones in Upper Egypt: We are hoping to found one at Port Said in the coming year. New institutes have been started


in Irak, and there is now an Englishman teaching English in every school there. In Turkey the evidence of the desire of the Turkish authorities to adopt English methods of education has become more and more clear.

Mr. Mathers: Would it not be better to teach British methods?

Mr. Butler: British methods. I accept the hon. Member's correction the more readily as half of me comes from North of the Border! It was the Council that organised the important visit of Turkish editors and deputies to this country last year. We have a direct indication of the value of that visit when we study the Turkish Press. Perhaps in Greece the British Council has had its most remarkable effect. The huge institutes at Athens, in Salonika, and in several other places, bear witness to the name of Britain in Greece. An important piece of pioneer work has been done by the signing— for the first time, I believe, between this country and another— of a cultural convention between Greece and this country, which may be said to be the charter for perpetual cultural relations between the two countries. To crown that work there has been appointed a new Byron Professor at the University of Athens. This post is to be filled by Lord Dunsany, who has left for Greece.
Turning to other parts of the world where the Council's work is progressing, let me refer to Malta and Cyprus. It is rather remarkable that in one morning, on different Votes, the spirit of Malta should be twice referred to. Perhaps the success of the British Council is most dramatically seen in those countries which are putting up the best resistance, in those areas most remarkable for their resolution. In Valetta, British culture has been kept alive in this impregnable fortress. In Cyprus four institutes have been opened during the year.
When we consider the development of the work of the Council in the Colonies, I would say to the hon. Member for Shipley that that aspect of the question is in mind, but that if the British Council are to extend their work to the Colonies, it will mean coming to this Committee for more money, and for an extension of the scope of the Council beyond what they undertake at present. That does not mean

that it cannot be done. It does mean that the matter will require deep consideration, which will be given to it.
Another country in which the work of the Council has been very important is Portugal. In Madrid, too, the British Institute, opened this year, bids fair to be as successful as other institutes elsewhere, and there is evidence that its work is welcomed by the people of Spain. Those are some of the examples of the extension of the work of the British Council. I do not apologise for giving them, because I believe that the Committee was desirous of obtaining further information.
The other main question that I was asked was about overlapping. I was asked by the hon. Member for North Camberwell under which Vote the expenses of the British Council are borne. There is no doubt about that. The Vote is that set out here, "Diplomatic and Consular Services," and the Foreign Office is proud to be able to take a close interest in the work of the Council and to assist them in any way it can. I am myself not apprehensive of the danger of the overlapping of the functions of the British Council and, say. the Ministry of Information. The Council's function is to make British life and thought better known abroad. The work of the Ministry of Information—which must not be underestimated—covers in some respects fields equivalent to those of the British Council, but its work has a much more political and propaganda tinge than the work of the Council, which is essentially cultural. In the realms where overlapping might have existed, such as in the distribution of books and periodicals, the distribution of excerpts from the Press— articles and that sort of thing— and films, there has been a demarcation of the activities of the Council and those of the Ministry of Information, agreed upon by Lord Lloyd and the then Minister of Information.

Mr. Price: Is the film to to be developed in future?

Mr. Butler: I am coming to that. I made a note of the fact that the hon. Member wished to know more about the film aspect. The news reels and the documentaries, which have to be of a particular type to suit the work of the institutes, for example, will be developed within the bounds for which money is


provided. The question of overlapping of function is not one upon which the Government wish to sit back and say that nothing further can be done. The matter will be kept under review, and any criticism made in the Committee to-day will be considered by the Government. That, I think, gives the Committee some closer idea of the work of the Council. I trust that the Committee will, therefore, let the Government have this Vote, and so give encouragement to a body whose task, I believe, is essential to our success. An article appeared recently in a paper in Buenos Aires, which said:
It is indeed remarkable that when the British are fighting for their lives they can pay so much attention to the things of the mind.
It is through things of the mind that we are going to be brought through this struggle, and it is in order to support them that we arc asking for this Vote.

Mr. Woods: Would the right hon. Gentleman reply to the point as to how far the Council exercise control, how frequently they meet, and how far the actual control is in the hands of one man, the Chairman?

Mr. Butler: The Council have an Executive and a series of other committees. There was a theory that some of these committees did not function as they should, but I have been into that and I am satisfied that the Council is run in an efficient manner. Very naturally, in the period of the dynamic personality of the late Lord Lloyd, his name came very frequently to the front in the organisation and the running of the Council, but I am satisfied that he was not himself of the dictator type, even in the Council, and that he listened to the point of view of other people, as the hon. Gentleman opposite can bear witness. I am certain that under the new arrangements that are being made, attention will be paid to the necessity for running the Council efficiently as a corporate body.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £291,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1941, for the expenses in connection with His Majesty's Embassies, Missions and Consular Establishments Abroad, and other expenditure chargeable to the Consular

Vote; certain special grants and payments, including grants in aid; and sundry other services.

CLASS VII.

MINISTRY OF WORKS AND BUILDINGS.

Motion made, and Question proposed,

"That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £ 10, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1941, for the salaries and expenses of the Ministry of Works and Buildings."

Mr. Lawson: The Committee will be well aware that this is the first time that the Vote concerning this new Department has been discussed in the House of Commons. The Ministry of Works and Buildings has absorbed what was previously known as the Office of Works, and this will be the first time that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry has had to give an account of his Department. I believe that the Committee would like me to say that we welcome his appointment as the Minister responsible to this House for that Department. He brings to the Department a knowledge and experience of a great craft, and wide administrative knowledge of the building trades in general. He knows all the virtues of the craft and its difficulties. I am sure that the Committee will agree that perhaps one of the most popular appointments that have been made has been the appointment of my hon. Friend to this Department.
In the ordinary course of things this would have been one of the most important Debates in connection with the Estimates, but it will be remembered that last week my right hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Lees-Smith) stated that as far as we were concerned the Debate would be limited, and that we would look to another date to have what is known as a full-dress Debate upon this Ministry. There is a good deal to be said about the conditions under which it has been set up, and the general statement that was made by the Lord Privy Seal, but all this can wait until another Debate. Much was said in another place about what was expected of the Ministry of Works and Buildings, and I believe it was expected that the Ministry was going to deal with a whole mass of things which really had nothing to do with such a Department, and which was never in the mind of the Government when the Depart-


ment was set up. Therefore, I propose to leave aside planning and all the other functions which the Ministry was supposed to have attached to it, and put one simple question to my hon. Friend.
Everybody knows that one of the difficulties to-day is that masses of people are being shut out of their houses because of bombing. Some of the houses are merely damaged; they are not habitable but can be made habitable. It may be that at some stage or other there may come a lull when rebuilding can be attended to as far as these houses are concerned. Most people wonder what is to be the procedure for the repairing of houses. I do not know whether this has to do directly with the Department of my hon. Friend, but I think that at least he can inform the Committee exactly the relationship of the Ministry of Works and Buildings to this question. At any rate, the Ministry has to deal with the control of the material for building, and I think that that is where it comes in most vitally. Those who have seen the destruction of these houses and those which need repairing would be much moved if they could understand how the people concerned are heartened if they are told that material will be available for the purpose of rebuilding or repairing their houses. I can remember, in the early stages of the blitz, seeing a number of houses that had been laid down in respect of which the controller of material was in a position at the time to say that materials would be set aside for the purpose of repairing such houses, and realising how heartened the people were when they found that that could be done, because the general impression was that nothing of the kind could be done with the material available.
I shall be glad if my hon. Friend can tell us of the procedure in regard to the houses in various parts of the country that have either been destroyed or are in such a condition that they can be made habitable. It would be an advantage to the Committee, and to the country generally, if the simple story could be told of the procedure that a householder has to take in order that his damaged house can be repaired. Can my hon. Friend tell us, for instance, what is the organisation of the Department, as far as the representatives of the Ministry are

concerned in the country, for the control of the necessary material and making it available to the people who need it? If he would give a simple description of what has been done, I think it would be of considerable value to the people in this country. I will not enter into the extent to which they are controlling material, or how far that control is going. That is a matter which will come up in the future Debate, which, I expect, will occupy a whole day. I will not enter into the question of general building after the war; that, too, will come up in the future Debate, but if the hon. Gentleman will answer as simply as possible the questions I have put to him, it will be of great value to householders, the country in general and probably to Members of this House who are very much interested in planning for immediate needs, following the suffering they have gone through as a result of bombing.

Mrs. Tate: I do not wish to detain the Committee at this moment, but I think it is very important that we should know whether we are embarking on the rebuilding of houses which have been destroyed or on rebuilding a better Britain from the point of view of better houses and better planned towns. I sincerely hope that, where there has been large-scale destruction, as in Coventry, Bristol and some other towns, we shall have sufficient vision to plan that every house, for instance, should have hot water and central heating from a main supply and that we should have the most progressive and modernised methods of refuse disposal.
I wish to add that there has been published in the Press new appointments to the Ministry of Works and Buildings— directors and deputies under Lord Reith. I think it is unfortunate, when we are dealing with the rebuilding of houses and towns, that not one woman should have been appointed to help advise. I do not think anyone who has really studied the planning of houses and towns can say that we have very much to be satisfied with in recent years. If we are to build practical houses which will be happy, healthy homes, I think there is definite need to have the advice of at least one woman.

Viscountess Astor: I would like to know whether this Committee is for the rebuilding of temporary


houses or permanent houses? If it is for permanent houses, I think it is nothing short of a disgrace that you have not some women on it. I know this Government, like all others, pays lip-service to women, and when it comes to the building of houses it is really madness not to consult them. I saw the other day that a local authority had built some new houses in which there were three different types of heating apparatus. That is the kind of thing men will go on doing unless they are advised by women. I do not say that their wives should advise men— not all women are practical—but a great many are practical, and when the Government set up a Committee of such importance as this, they should see that they get some women on it.
I have lately seen a large hostel built at enormous cost on the lines of the War Office. I wish you could see that hostel, with its waste of space, bricks and money. It is colossal, but nothing was done about it because such jobs have always been done like that. If we are to build a. better Britain, I hope it will not be done in the same old way. The Government should have one woman, if not more, on this Committee, and if there is to be a woman chosen, let the women choose her them selves. I have come to the conclusion that where men choose a woman, they always choose a "Yes, yes" woman, who is no good. A woman should stimulate you, provoke you, and bring out what is the best in you. The Parliamentary Secretary himself has a wife, whom I had the pleasure of meeting the other day, and I hope that he of all men will see that practical women have a say in this new land we are to build. People now are talking about a braver and better Britain, but I do not see that it will be any better than in their fathers' time. I say that we can build a much better world if this House of Commons, which is mainly elected by women —

The Deputy-Chairman (Colonel Clifton Brown): I must remind the Noble Lady that we are talking about the Ministry of Works and not about elections to the House of Commons.

Viscountess Astor: This Department was the last to be appointed by the House of Commons, and that is why I was talking about it. The Members here are elected by women's votes, and I hope that

women will get their fair share of any opportunities.

Mr. Lindsay: I rise only to ask a question and also primarily to congratulate my hon. Friend before he makes his maiden speech as a Minister. We are, I believe, to have a Debate on this subject in the future, and at present there is considerable apprehension among a number of people that the line between the hon. Gentleman's Ministry and the Ministry presided over by the Minister without Portfolio is not very clearly drawn. I am a little apprehensive about what my hon. Friend beside me said about criticism made in another House about Lord Reith's functions, and I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to tell us that the position will be stated in the big Debate to come.

Mr. Lawson: What I meant was that it had been assumed in another place that the functions of the Ministry would include at that time those that are now allotted to the Ministry of Reconstruction.

Mr. Lindsay: Those remarks show only too clearly the considerable aprehension which is felt within this House, let alone outside. When the next Debate comes along we shall press the point strongly.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works and Buildings (Mr. Hicks): First, let me say how much I thank the Committee for the generous attitude they have shown towards the Supplementary Estimate, having, as they had, in the back of their minds the knowledge that there will be an opportunity later for an extended Debate on the scope and functions of the Ministry of Works and Buildings. I think the present arrangements are that the Debate will take place as soon as it can be conveniently arranged through the ordinary channels. As there will be an opportunity for a full Debate, I do not intend to go into the matter at too great length on this Supplementary Estimate.
I wish to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson) for the generous remarks he made about me. I could not help feeling it was a pity that more hon. Members were not present to listen to them, but those hon. Members who read the Official Report will see the very kind things which my hon. Friend said. He


asked a question about houses that have suffered from the blitz, and the position of my Department in that matter. When the Debate takes place, I shall be able to state in general and in detail the organisation of the Department and the type of assistance that is given; but fundamentally, the position is that if a house is at all habitable, it is the task of the local authority to see that it is repaired. If the local authority feels that it is unequal to the task, my Department has a supplementary labour force which gives assistance, as it is doing at the present time in many London boroughs and in some towns in the Midlands and the North. The reports that are received indicate how very pleased the local authorities are with this supplementary help. The materials are controlled through the Ministry of Works and Buildings, and the local authorities can give sanction for repairs up to a certain amount. I have stated in the House, in reply to Questions, that it is not proposed to rebuild houses that have been very severely damaged. Some houses have received damage to such an extent that it would require a considerable amount effectively to restore them, and in such cases it is not proposed to restore them; but in cases where the damage can be brought within a reasonable proportion of first-aid repairs, it is the task and duty not only of the local authorities but of my Department to render immediately all assistance that can be given to put such houses in repair. The organisation that we have is the emergency services, our own offices and the local authorities. I will deal with this more extensively when the full Debate takes place and when the scope and functions of the Department are under more critical examination.
The hon. Lady the Member for Frome (Mrs. Tate) asked questions—which I am sure she will agree would be better dealt with in the full Debate—as to the work of re-building, the proposals which my noble Friend has in mind and the consultations that will take place in order to try to get the best understanding of the difficulties that we are likely to encounter when we attempt to put into effect what the hon. Lady so admirably expressed, the re-building of a better and brighter Britain. The Noble Lady the Member for the Sutton Division of Plymouth (Vis-

countess Astor) was not quite sure whether we shall have the young men capable of building a Britain as beautiful as some of us would like to see it. I can assure her that at the Ministry of Works and Buildings we are all ears— it is not merely a question of lip-service—and that we ask for, and listen to, all the advice which the women of the country can give us. We want to see whether that advice can be fitted into the picture so that we may build better houses for our people.

Viscountess Astor: Does this mean that there will not be a single woman on the committee?

Mr. Hicks: I have not said that a committee has been established. If the noble Lady will read the announcement in the Press she will see that it is a question of appointing officers to various Departments, and not a committee. My noble Friend has in mind the question of consultations with ladies, whether single or married.

Viscountess Astor: I said capable women.

Mr. Hicks: That is the type we would like to have.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £ 10, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1941, for the salaries and expenses of the Ministry of Works and Buildings.

LABOUR AND HEALTH BUILDINGS, GREAT BRITAIN.

Resolved,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £ 162,755, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending cm the 31st day of March, 1941, for expenditure in respect of labour and health buildings, Great Britain.

MISCELLANEOUS LEGAL BUILDINGS, GREAT BRITAIN.

Resolved,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £ 18,720, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1941, for expenditure in respect of miscellaneous legal buildings.

PUBLIC BUILDINGS, GREAT BRITAIN.

Resolved,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £ 914,710, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of pay-


ment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1941,for expenditure in respect of sundry public buildings in Great Britain, not provided for on other Votes, including historic buildings, ancient monuments, Brompton Cemetery and certain housing estates.

REVENUE BUILDINGS.

Resolved,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £ 256,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1941, for expenditure in respect of Customs and Excise, Inland Revenue, Post Office and telegraph buildings in Great Britain, certain post offices abroad, and for certain expenses in connection with boats and launches belonging to the Customs and Excise Department.

Orders of the Day — CLASS IV

BROADCASTING.

Resolved,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £ 200,000, be granted to His Majesty to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1941, for a grant in aid of the British Broadcasting Corporation.

Orders of the Day — CLASS V.

MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND NATIONAL SERVICE.

Motion made, and Question proposed,

"That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £ 1,100,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1941, for the salaries and expenses of the Ministry of Labour and National Service, including sums payable by the Exchequer to the Unemployment Fund, grants to local authorities, associations and other bodies in respect of unemployment insurance, employment exchange and other services; expenses of transfer and resettlement; expenses of training (including, on behalf of the Army Council, training of soldiers); contribution towards the expenses of the International Labour Organisation (League of Nations); expenses of the Industrial Court; expenses in connection with national service; and sundry services."

Mr. Lawson: I should like the Parliamentary Secretary to give us some explanation of this Supplementary Estimate. The Ministry of Labour and National Service have been dealing with the whole range of national service, I have seen something of some of the very good work they have done. In the part of the country from which I come, a good many of our men have had to be transferred.

The Deputy-Chairman: I would point out to the hon. Member that the largest proportion of this Supplementary Esti-

mate£ 700,000—is quite automatic as a contribution to the Unemployment Fund. This is not an occasion for going over the whole range of work of the Ministry of Labour and National Service.

Mr. Lawson: The Supplementary Estimate does cover the question of transference.

The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Member is partly correct there.

Mr. Lawson: I wish to ask the Parliamentary Secretary some questions on the subject of transfers. In a previous speech I paid tribute to the work of the staff of the Ministry in connection with transference. The Ministry itself has, I think, gained a good deal of experience in this work of sending men and women to different parts of the country. But what cannot be understood is the fact that at the end of, say, eight weeks, some of the men will be able to return with a free pass.

The Deputy-Chairman: I am afraid I must point out to the hon. Member that the money which is being voted here relates to transference in respect of local education authorities. Therefore, we cannot discuss on this Vote the action of the Ministry of Labour in regard to the general policy of transference.

Mr. Lawson: Then can the Parliamentary Secretary tell the Committee what this grant is?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. Assheton): The transference referred to is only in respect of schemes of choice of employment in connection with juvenile employment, and the services of local education authorities. The main question of transferred workers comes under the Vote of Credit which we cannot discuss to-day but which we shall be glad to discuss on some suitable occasion.

Question put, and agreed to.

Orders of the Day — UNCLASSIFIED SERVICES.

MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES(WAR SERVICES).

Resolved:
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £ 10, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1941, for the cost of the war services of the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries.

Orders of the Day — CLASS VI.

MILK (ENGLAND AND WALES).

Motion made, and Question proposed,

"That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £ 50,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1941, for payments in respect of milk used for manufacture in England and Wales, payments for improving the quality of the milk supply in England and Wales, and contributions towards certain expenses of the Milk Marketing Board in England and Wales."

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture (Mr. T. Williams): The grant of £ 50,000 is largely due to an increase in the quantity of milk sold to schoolchildren at reduced prices. I am sure that the Committee will readily concede that this money has been well expended. I ought to add that the Supplementary Estimate is very largely due to the fact that when evacuation started in 1939 there was a serious drop in the quantity of milk consumed by schoolchildren. The consumption from September to December, 1938, was nearly 10,000,000 gallons, while for the same period in 1939 it was reduced to just in excess of 5,000,000 gallons. There has been a very quick recovery, and it is because of that that this Supplementary Estimate of £ 50,000 is sought.

Mr. Lawson: May I ask the Parliamentary Secretary whether he has had any complaints about people who are well-placed applying for this cheap milk? I have no specific instances of it myself, but I have heard a considerable amount of talk about well-off people claiming cheap milk.

Mr. Williams: My hon. Friend is referring to a totally different scheme. This £ 50,000 was expended up to the end of last September when the Ministry of Food took over all subsidised milk schemes. The scheme to which my hon. Friend refers is now under the control of the Ministry of Food, and while one may have read in the Press, or heard observations here and there, that some person or persons in affluence are taking advantage of the cheap milk scheme, that in no way affects this Supplementary Estimate.

Question put, and agreed to.

MILK (SCOTLAND).

Resolved,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £ 10,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray

the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1941, for payments in respect of milk used for manufacture in Scotland, payments for improving the quality of the milk supply in Scotland and contributions towards certain expenses of Milk Marketing Boards in Scotland.

Orders of the Day — UNCLASSIFIED SERVICES.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH (WAR SERVICES).

Resolved,
That a Supplementary sum. not exceeding £ 10, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1941, for measures in England and Wales to deal with casualties and disease, for expenses connected with evacuation, for repair of war damage and for other services arising out of the war.

Orders of the Day — CLASS IX.

EXCHEQUER CONTRIBUTIONS TO LOCAL REVENUES, ENGLAND AND WALES.

Resolved,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £ 106,000, be granted to His Majesty to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1941, for the General Exchequer Contribution and certain other grants to local authorities in England and Wales.

EXCHEQUER CONTRIBUTIONS TO LOCAL REVENUES, SCOTLAND.

Resolved,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £ 3,273, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1941, for the General Exchequer Contribution and certain other grants to local authorities in Scotland.

Orders of the Day — CLASS I.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.

Resolved,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £ 2,200, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1941, for the salaries and expenses of the House of Commons, including a grant in aid to the Kitchen Committee.

PRIVY COUNCIL OFFICE.

Resolved,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £ 2,775, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1941, for the salaries and expenses of the Department of His Majesty's most Honourable Privy Council.

Orders of the Day — CLASS VII.

RATES ON GOVERNMENT PROPERTY.

Resolved,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £ 171,070, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1941, for rates and contributions in lieu of rates, &amp;., in respect of property in the occupation of the Crown for the public service, and for rates on buildings occupied by representatives of British Dominions and of Foreign Powers; and for the salaries and expenses of the Rating of Government Property Department, and a grant in aid of the expenses of the London Fire Brigade.

Orders of the Day — UNCLASSIFIED SERVICES.

MINISTRY OF HOME SECURITY.

Motion made, and Question proposed,

"That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £ 10, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1941, for the salaries and expenses of the Ministry of Home Security."

Mr. Lawson: May we have an explanation of this Supplementary Estimate?

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Home Security (Mr. Mabane): This is really no more than a book-keeping transaction. It relates to the receipts in respect of the sales of steel helmets, etc., and will enable the amount which the Ministry of Home Security Vote will require to draw from the Vote of Credit to be reduced proportionately by the appropriation of these receipts. Question put, and agreed to.

Orders of the Day — CLASS VI.

STATE MANAGEMENT DISTRICTS.

Resolved,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £ 10, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1941, for the salaries and expenses of the State Management Districts, including the salaries of the central office, and the cost of provision and management of licensed premises.

Orders of the Day — UNCLASSIFIED SERVICES.

MINISTRY OF SHIPPING.

Resolved,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £ 10, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the

charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1941, for the salaries and expenses of the Ministry of Shipping.

MINISTRY OF SUPPLY.

Resolved,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £ 10, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1941, for the salaries and expenses of the Ministry of Supply, including the expenses of the Royal Ordnance Factories.

MINISTRY OF AIRCRAFT PRODUCTION.

Resolved,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £ 10 be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1941, for the salaries and expenses of the Ministry of Aircraft Production.

Resolutions to be reported upon the next Sitting Day; Committee to sit again upon the next Sitting Day.

EMERGENCY POWERS (DEFENCE)ACT, 1939.

Resolved,

"That the Cold Storage (Control of Undertakings) (Charges) Order, 1941, dated 17th January, 1941, made by the Treasury under Section 2 of the Emergency Powers (Defence) Act, 1939, a copy of which was presented to this House on 23rd January, be approved."

Resolved,
That the Cold Storage (Control of Undertakings) (Charges) Amendment Order, 1941, dated 28th January, 1941, made by the Treasury under Section 2 of the Emergency Powers (Defence) Act, 1939, a copy of which was presented to this House on 30th January, be approved."— [Mr. Holdsworth]

COAL ACT, 1938.

Resolved,
That the Draft of the Rules proposed to be made by the Central Valuation Board, with the approval of the Board of Trade under the Coal Act, 1938, entitled the Coal (Valuation Procedure) Rules, 1941, a draft of which was presented to this House on 12th February, be approved."— [Mr. Holdsworth.]

Orders of the Day — WAR PENSIONS.

Motion made, and Question proposed,

"That this House do now adjourn."— [Mr. Holdsworth.]

Captain Sir Ian Fraser: I wish to make some remarks which will be critical of Government policy generally and of their attitude towards war pensions in particular. In order that the House may realise that I am trying to be utterly fair in what I say, I want to preface my remarks by giving credit where credit is due. Our system of war pensions has justly earned the reputation of being the best in the world. It is not subject to corruption or to graft or to political influence. No man can get a war pension who is not entitled to it, and not many who are entitled to a war pension fail to get one. Secondly, during the great slump from 1931 onwards, whereas war pensions were cut in every country in Europe and in some of our Dominions, they were not cut here. Thirdly, the Ministers of all parties whom I have known and of whom I have made inquiries from time to time and the civil servants who run the Ministry of Pensions have an understanding of their problem and a personal interest in trying to secure for the pensioners their rights. I particularly appreciate the present Minister's personal and humane interest in the wellbeing of the people who are under his charge.
I come now to the more critical remarks which I wish to address to the House. In 1919 some kind of settlement of the war pensions problem was made. The cost of living then stood at 215 points, as compared with the 100 which was taken as the 1914 normal. Since then the cost of living has dropped, until at the lowest point in the great slump it went as low as 136. Just before this war broke out it had risen to 155; it now stands at something over 196. In answer to representations which I and others have made, the Minister of Pensions himself has said that when the cost-of-living figure gets back to 215 the Government will consider raising the pensions of the veterans of the Great War. I am grateful at any rate for that, but I should like something more — not merely that when the cost of living reaches that figure it will be considered, but rather that they have a plan ready now, so that the moment it reaches that figure these men will get more money. It does not help the veterans of the Great

War, who are disabled and who are now-feeling the pinch, to know that when a certain thing happens the matter will be considered. Many Government Departments act promptly and many do not. If it is then to be a matter of inquiry, and if weeks or months are to pass, there will be grave dissatisfaction, which I hope will be shared by all Members of the House. My first request is that the limited undertaking may be taken further and that we may be assured that the Government will increase the pension when the cost of living reaches the 1919 figure. That seems to me to be the least that should be done. 
But I am going to try to show that much more should be done, and now. Since 1919 much has changed in this world. The standard of living of working-class people has changed— not merely the cost of living due to this war, but the whole standard. What was a luxury in 1919 has become in many a working-class home, if not a necessity, at least something that is habitual. I have been trying to think of the principle upon which we and other countries give war pensions. It is surely not that the persons should have mere subsistence. It is not, on the other hand, that they should have a great degree of comfort and luxury. We cannot afford that. It is something between the two. At a time when you assess and fix war pensions at a certain level you have regard to the standard of living of the working-class population as a whole, to the wages that are being earned, and to what is being commonly used in millions of households in the country, and you fix your pension somewhere between the better wages and the payment made to unemployed and other persons. You do not put your war pensioner down to the level of Poor Law relief or unemployment pay, and you do not put him up to the highest wages earned by artisans. You find a point somewhere between the two which you consider fair and reasonable in all the circumstances.
If the point that was found in 1919 was fair and reasonable in those circumstances and in that background, then the change in the whole standard of living of working-class people should be taken into account after a period of 20 years. It is a fact that the whole standard of living of the masses of the people has risen in the intervening time. In spite of that, I am of the opinion that the disabled soldier,


sailor or airman would have been willing — I would almost say he would have been glad— to have continued to receive his low fixed income throughout this war, had he known that other people were to continue to receive their pre-war incomes also. Had the Government said to him, "The men who were unemployed before the war will come back into employment on their old wages; their incomes will be increased because they will be replacing unemployment benefit by full wages, and they will be increased even more because they will be working overtime, but the rates will remain the same. We will fix the rates and we will fix the cost of living," then the veterans of the Great War might have been told, "You will make your sacrifice and you will give up the amenities to which you have been accustomed. You will meet the hardships and difficulties of war and the extra expense they impose on you, and you will do it on your pre-war income because everybody else is doing the same."
That would have been a fair plea and it would have been responded to, as a willing sacrifice, by all. But that is not what the Government have done. I can hardly charge the Minister of Pensions with this because he has not much to do with major Government policy. He ought at least, however, to join with those of us who criticise the Government for the policy or lack of policy in relation to the control of wages and prices and the drift towards inflation which they are allowing to take place and which is causing great hardship to people who live on fixed incomes, and notably pensioners of the late war, for whom I speak. May I give one or two figures? The lower-paid Government servants have had their incomes raised by about 5 per cent. Miners have received an increase of 3s. 2d. a shift. The railwaymen have had an increase of 13s. a week. Soldiers, sailors and airmen had considerable increases before the war and an extra 6d. a day in the last few months. The amenities which they receive have also increased pro rata. I am not grudging any of these people their increases. I am only pointing out that consumption goods are limited and that an increase given to one must be at the expense of all. In the field of social service, old age pensions have been increased; unemployment benefit has been increased by 4s. a week,

unemployment assistance by 3s., workmen's compensation by 5s. and children's allowances have been added. In the fields of employment and of help given by the State or through other channels to those who are unemployed, material improvements in the money received has taken place.
I read in the "Times" the other day an article by an economist in which he illustrated the effect of inflation by a parable. He said: Let the whole sum of consumption goods in the country be represented by a great bowl of soup. Let all classes of people who draw upon this bowl be represented by persons sitting round the bowl each with a spoon. Other things being equal, the amount they get out of the bowl will be related to the size of the spoon. What the Government are doing is to increase the size of the spoons of a very large percentage of the population and to leave my friends with the same spoons as they had before this war broke out— in fact with the same spoons as they had in 1919. It does not seem right that the Government should ignore and neglect the interests of those who live on fixed and humble weekly sums, but their policy of drifting towards inflation has had that effect. I am aware of the difficulties of war-time finance, and, personally, I wish that a stronger and a wiser attitude had been taken by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in this matter. I should have wished for greater help from the Minister of Labour, who knows so well the men with whom he is dealing in solving these problems, but in the absence of a policy of preventing inflation we have to face the fact that we have it with us, coming along and increasing all the time. In those circumstances some consideration is due to the people with fixed incomes.
May I turn to the pensions which are proposed to be paid, and are already being paid in a few cases, to men who have been wounded and disabled in this war? A private soldier totally disabled in the great war receives £2 a week flat-rate pension, and in certain cases an attendant's allowance, and where he was married before he received his disability a wife's allowance and children's allowance; but in the bulk of the cases the soldiers were young boys who were not married when wounded, and so do not receive the wife's and children's allow-


ance. I ask the House to remember that £ 2 was the flat-rate pension. A man similarly disabled in this war receives 34s. 2d. I cannot feel that it is right to give a man who lost two limbs in 1917 £ 2 a week, and a man who lost two limbs in 1941 34s. 2d. a week. I can think of no argument to show that that is just. Great progress has been made in. our social services. As we become more civilised and more understanding we have met want and need in greater measure, but here, at the end of two decades, the Ministry of Pensions are going back rather than forward, and offering to the young man who now loses his limbs a lesser pension than was given to his opposite number in the late war.
Of course the Government will say, "You are not presenting the case quite fairly. Do you not realise that when we entered upon this war we had an unknown number of casualties to deal with? We did not know whether the casualties in the Armed Forces or the casualties arising from air raids were going to be so overwhelming that the whole financial structure might break down." I admit there was some argument in the earlier days of the war, because when the war broke out the Government were so afraid of the tremendous damage that air attack would do that they could not, in spite of a committee's advice, produce— they dare not produce— any scheme of compensation for damage to property. So many houses and factories might have been blown to pieces that it was impossible to do it. As a result of knowledge of air raids, rather than imagination and imaginary forebodings, we have before this House a scheme which will compensate for damage to property.
Why has that change taken place? Because it has been shown, as many of us thought in advance, that damage from air raids, however severe, is not so overwhelming and catastrophic as some people supposed. It is measurable. If it is possible now to measure the damage to property, it should be possible to measure the damage to human beings. If the argument that casualties might be overwhelming and unprecedented held the Government back from doing justice 15 months ago, they might, in the light of what they have done about property,

reconsider that argument. I, therefore, ask the Minister to assimilate pensions payable for this war to those being paid in respect of the last war. I cannot feel that he can justify any less payment being made now for the same disability.
Among the allowances, is the attendance allowance, to which I have already referred. That has been cut by a similar percentage. One of my complaints is that, as wages have risen, so have costs of attendance, and that they are probably more now and not less than they were 20 years ago. If a certain degree of attendance is necessary, more rather than less should be allowed, but I ask that the same at least should now be allowed. There is one other point, but a very important one. If pensions are to be reduced, officers' pensions, everyone would agree, should be reduced pro rata with those of the men. I make no special complaint, because officers' pensions were reduced when the men's pensions were reduced, although I complain that any of them should be reduced. In assessing officers' pensions for this war, the Government have been doubly mean. I use the word "mean" advisedly. Owing to some old tradition, an officer used to be pensioned differently if he was wounded leading his men in the face of the enemy and if he was injured while attending to a dump of ammunition 10 miles behind the line. It was one of the factors which were taken into account, even in the last war. There were, therefore, two rates for officers— one rate if he was in action and another rate if he was not. In assessing officers' pensions for this war, the Government have deliberately chosen the lesser of the two, and have then made a deduction from that. That is the first meanness. The deduction which they have made is higher, pro rata, for officers than the deduction made for men. That is the second meanness. I ask that that point should be considered.
Now I come to what I think is the most important criticism of all. I have already pointed out that the practice in pensions administration has been to pension the soldier, sailor or airman, having regard to his responsibilities at the time when the pension was recommended. No additional pension is given if he marries sub-


sequently or has children subsequently. That is contrary to the interests of the country, as well as to the interests of the man concerned. No one could care for such a man better than a good wife. No one could do the duty which the country ought to do for him better than a good wife. She can guide, tend, and help him, and she can do more than anyone else to make his life happy and compensate him for what he has lost. Under the old Warrants— and it is repeated in the new Warrants— a single man received £ 2,in respect of the Great War and 34s. 2d. in this war, and so does the man who marries subsequently and has two or three children. If the one figure for the single man is too low, the figure, with allowances, paid to the married man is too high. I consider that the single man's money is too low and I therefore make the following plea to the Government: Many developments have taken place which suggest that now is the time for them to reconsider their attitude towards wives and children, who are an asset to the country as well as to the men. The Ministry might well consider this point. If there is no other way of increasing the benefit to these men in the manner I have already asked, let it be done by recognising wives and children for all pensions, whenever the men marry, with safeguards to prevent the death-bed marriage, which really is an abuse. That could very easily be worked out, and has been worked out in the Dominions.
I feel sincerely that this is a grievance which it is proper to bring to the notice of the House of Commons. When one knows that all over the country some thousands of people are feeling that it is now their turn to have a slightly larger spoon given to them— not that they may get more soup out of the common pot but that they may continue to draw something approximating that which they were drawing before— to keep silent when such a feeling exists in the country is not giving the best service to the country. One of the privileges of this House that we private Members should retain and use is that of bringing forward complaints when we know that grievances exist. I would ask the Minister if he cannot deal with this matter departmentally. I ask him to go to the Chancellor, however harassed the Chancellor may be, and tell him that from the point of view of the person with

the fixed income he must do something about this increasing inflation, or if not he must authorise some payments such as those which I have suggested, to compensate those who live on the lowest fixed incomes. I do not wish to make a sentimental appeal for the men who have been disabled in former wars or in this war, but, knowing the old soldiers very well, I would say that they are a group of men who rendered their service willingly in their time and are still amongst His Majesty's most loyal, patient and deserving subjects.

Mr. Beverley Baxter: Everyone agrees that any plea for ex-Service men comes especially well from my hon. and gallant Friend who has just resumed his seat. His own bravery in the last war and his great courage since that time have been an inspiration to many of us. I agree with him that we have in our present Minister of Pensions the most humane Minister that I, in my short Parliamentary time, can remember. Whether or not he always does what we ask, he does listen to our pleas, and therefore I want to mention one case in which I think he has been wrong in his decision, and ask him to consider clarifying it. I refer to a constituent of mine, a married man who was called up, and who, I understand, was a very good soldier. After he had served some time in camp he became entitled to five or six days' leave. He came back home, and on returning to duty in the black-out he was changing trains at some junction when there was an accident and he was killed. His widow applied for a pension, and it was refused on the ground, apparently, that he was on leave and was therefore not performing military duties.
This is a very serious decision and one which should be considered carefully with all its implications. Suppose, for example, some of our soldiers who have fought so bravely in Egypt eventually get leave— and well-deserved leave it would be— and on the way back by some accident, not necessarily through enemy action, they are killed. Are their widows to be denied the right to live because their deaths did not take place in the desert? Surely this former constituent of mine was performing his duty in returning on time to camp? One might enlarge still further and say that military service consists only of the actual per-


formance of military duties and that leave does not come under it. That would be opening up a very big question. A soldier must have leave, for his peace of mind and general efficiency. I can quite realise that if this man had gone back and had got into a public house brawl of his own making, and had been killed there, a pension would not be granted to his widow, although even in that case there would be hardship.
The point I want the Minister to consider very carefully is this: the man would not have been on that dark station at night unless he had been serving. He would not have been there unless he had been doing his duty in returning at the time he was supposed to return. If you lay down that that is not service, what would happen if one day a soldier went down to the village to the cinema and was killed by a bomb outside the camp on his way back? Would that also be excluded? Or, what is much more likely, if he were killed by one of those recklessly-driven Army lorries? I do not want to detain the House, but I am sure that the House will agree with me that this is a decision which ought to be reconsidered. Safeguards against abuse could be devised, but in this particular case I put it to the House that the Minister has not come to a right decision.

Mr. Adamson: It is right that this question of pensions should be raised particularly at this early stage in the development of the casualty position in this war, as compared with the last. It is right also that the hon. and gallant Member for Lonsdale (Sir I. Fraser) should have raised it in connection with the associations of ex-servicemen. Of course the ordinary Member of this House, particularly in the early post-war years, came into contact with the ex-servicemen and their associations on these questions of pensions and allowances. It was necessary to have some knowledge of what was happening then, and we can compare it with what is happening today. There is some danger in having a sliding scale based on the cost of living. It may be that in certain industrial organisations, a sliding scale according to the rise and fall of the cost of living is satisfactory. But, in the main, it is not a satisfactory way of dealing with the ordinary wage problem, and I think it

would also be difficult in the case of pensions. The reason is that there is always bound to be a lag before an increase can be decided upon and put into operation. That is one of the difficulties in connection with this very difficult question which it is almost impossible to overcome. If my memory is correct, under the Royal Warrant the actual flat rate of the pension for total disablement was fixed at £ 2 somewhere about 1919.
There are other factors which should be impressed upon the mind of the Minister. The standard of living of 1919 is not the standard we should expect today. Conditions have improved. The normal luxuries of 1919 are the essential commodities of to-day. We have to take into account the better housing and other services. The hon. Member for Wood Green (Mr. Baxter) raised the question of casualties or injury to members of the Forces when off duty. Some time ago I had to raise the question of a service man who was unfortunate enough to lose both his feet in an accident at a railway station. The matter was outside the bounds which the Statute set to the Minister's powers. I put it to the credit of the Minister that he did, however, use his influence, and not only provided an allowance for the man for a certain period, but also provided him with artificial feet. He even went to the length of offering to bring the matter before the appropriate organisation. But the point arises whether these people should be dependent upon charity. There should be something in the Regulations which would give the Minister power to act; and I am sure that he would welcome any provision in the Statute governing the Regulations which would compel him to do these things for men who have been unfortunate. A young man with responsibilities will still need to have an occupation; he will still have the outlook of other men, and want to settle down and get married. He should have some security.
On the general question of the review of pensions, I trust the Minister will, if an advisory committee is not in operation now, set up a new advisory committee to assist him in the light of the circumstances of to-day, which are different from those of the last war. Such a committee could give him advice which would be helpful to him, and beneficial to the men who are playing their part in the war. just as much


as did the veterans of the last war, and to their dependants. I trust that he will give some consideration to the advantages that might accrue from such a course.

Sir Henry Morris-Jones: I do not want to detain the House for more than a few minutes or to pursue the aspect of the question raised by my hon. Friend behind me, although I agree that he has raised a matter of the utmost importance to which I trust the Minister will give his consideration. There will be repercussions during this war and after in regard to that aspect of the question. We realise that the Minister at the moment has tremendous responsibilities, and may I say how pleased we are that his abilities have been recognised recently by the elevation which my right hon. Friend has received from the State in recognition of the great importance which is now attached to his office. He has to deal with widows' pensions as a result of the previous war and of this war, but he has also to deal with the question of civil pensions. There is, however, only one aspect to which I want to refer which is troubling me as a medical man, who was in. practice for many years, and that is, the large number of cases that are passed into the Army as fit by the medical board. A number of these cases which come under the category and responsibility of the Minister, or at all events come under the Ministry of Pensions, are of incapacity contracted during war or during service, and yet at the same time the Ministry of Pensions categorically turns them down on the ground that the disability had not been contracted during service. Here is a very vast and serious problem which my right hon. Friend will have to face. I know this sort of thing happened in the last war, and we all remember how for several years after the war hon. Members of this House constantly had cases drawn to their notice where men who had been passed fit by a medical board eventually developed a disability, no doubt, in many cases, as a result of service, and yet had been turned down in their application for pension. It is impossible now for us or even the Minister himself to assume the duty of proving or disproving the case of an applicant, but I want to remind my right hon. Friend that this House and the country will not tolerate after this war the kind of treatment that has been given to

many ex-Service men as a result of the last war.
The medical board at the present time consists of several members, each with very special capacities, some with regard to the eyes, the chest and so forth. If the medical board appointed by the Ministry is not in the category where one can take it that their diagnosis is correct, surely the whole question of the medical boards ought to be reviewed. I am talking about the medical board before whom recruits appear before they are accepted by the State into the Army, Navy or Air Force. On the other hand, it is admitted that medical boards are efficient and know their work, and if they have the necessary qualifications and experience, then it must be accepted ipso facto that when a man is passed as a recruit for service he was at that time fit for service. That must be accepted. If a man was accepted for service after due and deliberate examination by experts appointed by the Government, then I say that the Ministry of Pensions has no right, if an individual contracts disability during the war, to get out of liability by saying that the disability might have been contracted if the individual had been in civilian life.
There is a very large class of disabilities which are somewhat nebulous in character and where it is very difficult to prove for certain whether disability was contracted as a result of service or might have been contracted if not in service. That, I submit to the House, is a category towards which the Ministry must take the most sympathetic view. This large class of cases in which there is doubt causes anxiety to the families of those who are concerned. It makes it more difficult, as the years go by, to come to a decision on them because the facts of disability as contracted recede into the distance, and medical science is an uncertain science. There is no vast amount of positive knowledge. I want my right hon. Friend, in the course of this war, to review the whole position of original acceptance by medical boards in relation to the passing of a man as fit for His Majesty's service, and then going back on their view and saying that a man was not fit at the time. The Ministry of Pensions must accept the responsibility of accepting a man for service, and although I do not expect my right hon. Friend to go into this question now— it raises a big issue— I put it to


him and the House for consideration. The work of medical boards with reference to subsequent disability must be reviewed during this war.

Mr. Gallacher: As regards the case quoted by the hon. Member for Wood Green (Mr. Baxter), I would like to say to the Minister that the average man and woman in this country would expect that that widow would be entitled to consideration for a pension. In regard to the attitude of the Minister towards disability resulting from the last war or from this war, there must be reconsideration of the whole question. I had a letter the other week dealing with one of these cases. The man was dead, and his widow made an application for consideration for a pension. In this case it was not a question of there being no connection between the cause of death and the disability, but a question of the Minister being satisfied that the cause of death did not wholly arise from the injury. Something must be done about cases of that sort. It is foolish to suggest that these disabilities can be considered apart from the sufferings which the men may have endured. Of course, a direct connection cannot be shown between the harsh conditions they have suffered month after month and year after year, but anybody with a grain of common sense must understand that if these hardships come at a particular time in life, they are bound to have an effect in later years.
There is another very important point to which I want to refer. If a son goes into one of the Services and leaves behind a widowed mother, he makes an allowance to her. If he is missing for a certain period, the allowance is continued, but if he is then presumed dead, the allowance is stopped and the woman qualifies for a pension if the Minister is satisfied that she needs it. In other words, as soon as the son is presumed dead, the woman has to face a means test. I received a letter recently from the War Office about such a case. The War Office cannot make up their mind. After 17 weeks the allowance is stopped, but if the son is not presumed dead, the widowed mother can apply for a continuance of the allowance, or if he is presumed dead, she can apply for a pension, but her means must be taken into account This is a shameful position. If a mother

loses a son in such circumstances, whether he is killed, missing or presumed dead, the allowance ought to be continued. The point which I consider to be of the utmost importance is this. Where there is a widow whose son has been killed or whose son is missing and presumed dead, will the Minister, in considering her means when she makes an application for a pension, apply the same conditions as are now to be applied in the case of old age pensioners and unemployed people?

Mr. Woolley: I should like to supplement the point that was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Denbigh (Sir H. Morris-Jones). He mentioned cases that had come to light as a result of the last war, and I am certain that most hon. Members, like myself, have had experience of similar cases in the present war. I have experienced the kindness and sympathetic consideration which the Minister has given to cases that I have referred to him, and I feel sure that the type of case mentioned by my hon. Friend will appeal to him as one which seems to be very hard. I have in mind at the moment the case of a young fellow who had not had a day's illness during the whole of his life. He was passed as medically fit and went into the Army. Some time after he developed an illness as a result of which he had to undergo an operation. He was operated upon and became fit, and ultimately he even went out to France. As the result of the very severe weather last winter, he contracted some further illness and had to be invalided out of the Army. That young fellow is at present in employment, but his capacity for earning money is considerably reduced. Financially he is in a worse position than before he went into the Army. I hope the Minister will give careful consideration to cases of this kind, which cause considerable hardship. I am sure that they are cases which will occur as time goes on unless they are adequately dealt with at once.

The Minister of Pensions (Sir Walter Womersley): May I say how pleased I am that this Debate has taken place and thank my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Lonsdale (Sir I. Fraser), who introduced the subject, for having; done so to-day when we have time to conduct a full Debate on these matters which arise from time to time. It gives me the oppor-


tunity of replying to certain criticisms which have not been too apparent in this House, but which come by way of a whispering gallery to myself in my own Department. I feel it is a privilege to be able to deal with them here, and to have plenty of time to do it. May I say to my hon. and gallant Friend that he and I share in full sympathy for ex-Service men who have suffered disability owing to their services to the country, and for the dependants of those men who have lost their lives? I have had a good deal of experience myself in dealing with cases in this House and in the private rooms of former Ministers, and I think I know pretty well the various cases which resulted from the last war. The hon. and gallant Member will agree with me that at the present moment we have to judge these things from a slightly different angle. With all the sympathy in the world— and I am glad that hon. Members have paid tribute to the fact that I try to administer my office with sympathy— there are certain points beyond which you cannot go, if you are to do your duty by the public at large and by those who have to find the money dispensed on behalf of these men and their dependants.
I am glad my hon. and gallant Friend mentioned in his speech that my responsibilities in this war were far beyond those of any previous Minister of Pensions. He reminded the House that I had to deal with pensioners of the last war— and there are 800,000 of them at this moment, 23 years after the war— and also with the victims of the present war. On top of that, there are the Mercantile Marine men and fishermen, which were not dealt with by the Ministry of Pensions during the last war. Then I have the whole of the Civil Defence volunteers, who embrace a tremendous number of people. Now we have added to that responsibility for the Home Guard and the civilian population— at one time only those gainfully employed, but now, I am glad to say, that has been extended to the non-gainfully employed. Therefore, I am sure the House will realise that the Government and myself have a tremendous task and that questions are bound to arise in such a wide sphere of work. Surely it must be realised that it is almost an impossibility to make anything like a calculation of the cost of all these pensions and allowances

to the Government, and therefore to the taxpayers of this country. I have said, time and time again, and I repeat, that the real time for stocktaking is at the end of the war, as was done after the last war, when we shall know what our liabilities are, and we shall also know what is left in the Treasury to deal with them, because the one thing that 1 am afraid of— I have had to say this to meeting after meeting of ex-service men— is that if we overload the camel, it will fall down, and those who are now benefiting will suffer. I give my pledge again to the British Legion and other representatives of ex-service men that as long as I am Minister of Pensions I shall not agree to any reduction of the old rate for the veterans of the last war.
That brings me to a very definite point made by my hon. and gallant Friend. This question has been brought to my notice by the British Legion, by the Service Committee of the Labour party, by the British Legion Committee of the House of Commons and other people— the question whether something could not be done for the veterans of the last war. I have given this matter very serious consideration, and if sympathy could be of any use they could have any amount of it, but I have to be a realist and face the position as it is. Here I should like to correct a statement which has been made on several occasions, though not to-day, that pensions given to those who suffered in this war arc lower than pensions given to those who suffered in the last war. That is not true. The rate of pensions during the last war was less than we are paying in this war. But higher rates came into being in 1919, when it was possible not only for the Minister but for Members of the House to realise the extent of the liability of the Government on the one hand, and what the Treasury could afford to allocate on the other. As one deeply interested in the movement at that time, as a member of the British Legion, but not a Member of this House, I thought that those who inquired into the matter and made the recommendations, and the Ministers who acted upon them, treated the men generously, and I do not think anyone has ever denied that. The arrangement made and agreed to by all parties— because I was interested in the movement, and we agreed to it— was that we should take the cost-of-living figure, which was 215 at that time, and add a sliding scale. If it went


up beyond 215 by five points, an increase had to be granted without any question. There was only one thing in which my hon. and gallant Friend was in error. He said it had to be conceded when it reached 215. Nothing of the kind.

Sir I. Fraser: It was the right hon. Gentleman who said that in answer to a Question two months ago. If he now says it is going to be done, I am happy.

Sir W. Womersley: No, my hon. and gallant Friend said it was in the Royal Warrant that it had to be conceded at 215. It is in the Royal Warrant that, when it reaches five points beyond 215, there has to be an increase, and that still stands. It is in the Warrant, and I cannot alter it.

Sir I. Fraser: Then you will make it?

Sir W. Womersley: Certainly; I cannot help it. Parliament sanctioned it, and it is Parliament which would have to cancel it. On the other hand, it was also arranged at that time and agreed to by all parties that as the cost of living fell by a substantial figure there should be a reduction in the pension. The cost of living did drop considerably from 215. When, however, the matter was considered by the Minister of Pensions and the Government it was agreed that it would be better not to make a reduction, although according to the agreement they had a right to do so. In view of the debt that was felt to be due to those who had served and those who were suffering severely at that time, in many cases from unemployment, they decided that they would not reduce the pensions. That was a generous and right attitude to take up. So that even in 1931, when almost everybody got a reduction, it was decided that ex-Service men should not suffer in any degree. I agreed at that time that it was a wise and proper thing to do. I submit that, in view of the fact that successive Governments have endorsed that policy of 1919 and have held faithfully to it, and that they have held also to the arrangement that was made in 1928 not to reduce pensions, it cannot be said that there has been any departure by this or any other Government from the strict agreement that was made. The Royal Warrant of 1919 is the operative Warrant

dealing with the men who fought in the Great War, and it must be carried out unless the House decides to alter it. Therefore 215 still stands as the figure for pensions of £ 2 a week for totally disabled men plus allowances. When it goes to five points beyond that, the pensions must go up, or otherwise we shall not be obeying the Royal Warrant.
This gives me an opportunity to speak about war pensioners in general and to pay my tribute to the work which my hon. and gallant Friend has done in the training of those who suffer from blindness. In my view, and after long experience I adhere to it, the best way to deal with these men and with disabled men as a body is, in addition to giving them a pension, to train them in some occupation. Even if it does not produce the same amount of wages which they could earn as fit men, it will find them something in the way of interest and occupation to keep their minds from their difficulties and troubles. My hon. and gallant Friend has played his part in giving them that training. Men have been trained at St. Dunstan's and have been able, although blind, to go into the competitive world and earn a good living. I am glad to say that he and his committee have agreed to take the blind men of this war and do the same on behalf of my Ministry as St. Dunstan's did during the last war and train them from the beginning so as to give them some hope and interest in life. I wish to pay my tribute to my hon. and gallant Friend for that.
We have done a considerable amount of training in other directions also. It will perhaps be of interest to the House to know what has happened to our pensioners. We have over 800,000 pensioners on our books as a result of the last war. About half of these are widows of men who gave their lives. Of the rest, 5,000 have rejoined the Army. All credit is due to the men who are patriotic enough to do that. We must be fair in these matters, and I should inform the House that these men get their pensions in addition to their Army pay and allowances. We do not cut anything off because they have joined the Army. We say, "Good luck to you. We are glad you have got into the Army, even if you are not a fit man and are drawing a disability pension, and you can keep the pension."


As to the rest, I have had a careful survey made, because I wanted my hon. and gallant Friend to know the exact position. I have made inquiries of the Ministry of Labour, who have dealt with this question of placing disabled ex-Service men, and of the King's Roll Committee, which has done remarkably good work. I want to pay my tribute to the King's Roll Committee and to those employers of labour who came on to the King's Roll and undertook to employ a certain percentage of disabled ex-Service men. From the beginning of the King's Roll scheme down to the present moment, I am glad to say, there has been a smaller percentage of disabled ex-Service men out of employment than of the ordinary civilian population. Even when we had the biggest slumps in trade, that was so. The last count that was taken showed that there were only 13,000 disabled ex-Service men registered as unemployed, and the Ministry of Labour added a note to say that in many cases that unemployment was only temporary. Those men who are employed are, I hope, getting the standard rates of wages, and in addition they are getting their full pensions and allowances for their wives. There will not be any children's allowances now, because the children have grown beyond the pension age. Only the other day I had a letter from an employer asking whether, if he employed one of these disabled ex-Service men, the man would suffer any reduction of pension, and I was able to reply, "Certainly not," and thus to give the fellow a chance.
I have just had a note passed up to me saying that when I spoke of five points just recently it should have been 5 per cent., so it is 5 per cent. of 215. There is not much in it, because if things are going to be as difficult as my hon. and gallant Friend suggests, they will not take long to get to that point; but having made that mistake, I have now had an opportunity of correcting it. The increase comes about automatically when that point is reached. There is to be no reduction even if the cost of living falls, and bearing in mind the large number of men now employed and still drawing full pension. I am sure that my hon. and gallant Friend will be satisfied that we are doing justice all round.

Sir I. Fraser: I am sure it would not be the right hon. Gentleman's wish to state anything that was not meticulously correct. I happen to be vice-chairman of the King's Roll National Council, a body which he has rightly praised for finding employment for disabled soldiers. It is true that the percentage of unemployment among disabled men is lower— or it was just before the war— than among the whole of the insured population. The man totally disabled, with 100 per cent. pension, is, in the main, the man who cannot get employment. Although St. Dunstan's and other agencies did find some of these men employment, there remain some hundreds and probably some thousands— the Minister has given the figure at 13,000— of them who can never find employment, because of their disability. They cannot get increased wages and the advantages of inflation, yet they suffer from its disadvantages. The Minister's argument that such a large part of this community is all right makes it all the more necessary for the Government to do something for the small element that is not all right.

Sir W. Womersley: I am sure that my hon. and gallant Friend will be courteous enough to let me finish my remarks and develop my points in my own way. I was about to deal with the very matter which he has raised. I have here an analysis of the figures. They are the very latest figures. They relate to disability pensioners who are unemployed. The figure of those from the Great War is 12,484 out of 400,000, while those of the new war number 15. I have been busy placing the new war cases where they can work. We have had some of the men trained and put: into jobs. Let us go a little further into the figures. This statement says:
(a) Those disabled, but able to follow normal occupations; of the Great War 5,312. and of the new war, one."— [Interruption.]
Yes, only one.

Mr. Granville: Are there no more casualties of the present war?

Sir W. Womersley: These arc the figures of men who are registered as unemployed. It is no use hon. Members saying "Rot" or that sort of thing. I am giving them the official figures. If they can bring me any different figures I shall be pleased. The statement goes on:


(b) able to perform light tasks; 6,770 of the Great War and, of the new war, 12 unemployed.
(c) cannot work under ordinary industrial conditions; 402 of the Great War, and two of the new war.
Let me say here and now that the 100 per cent. disabled men have not, in many cases, registered for employment, but the number is not anything like as large as some people imagine.
What is the position of these men? My hon. and gallant Friend knows that, where a man is so badly disabled that he cannot perform any duties, he gets, in most cases, an attendance allowance. My hon. and gallant Friend referred to the matter and suggested that the allowance should be increased, in addition to the pension. I agree that, when it becomes necessary to increase the pension, it will become necessary to take attendance allowances also into consideration, because attendance allowances are intended to be sufficient to pay for attendance upon a man who cannot look after himself. There are, also, as my hon. and gallant Friend knows, the British Legion, the Soldiers' and Sailors' Families Association and many other institutions which are willing and able to render assistance in the very needy cases where there is definite hardship.
If it were possible to set up Regulations so that a Minister of Pensions could deal with different cases in different ways, my job would be considerably easier, but that, it must be borne in mind, is almost impossible. Regulations have to be laid before Parliament. A lawyer can, perhaps, stretch them considerably, but a Minister of Pensions would not be doing his duty if he broke those Regulations without getting the consent of this House. Many cases are brought to my notice where it is the proper thing to make some allowance, if only for a short period, in order to help a man, or a family, over certain difficulties. Those institutions are ready and willing to consider cases. In addition to all this I have what is known as the King's Fund. I am glad to say that His Majesty has agreed that the Fund shall be continued for victims of this war. My hon. and gallant Friend knows that we have been able to do good work in the past from this Fund; I hope that we shall be able to do as good, or even better, work in the future.
But you cannot generalise and say that because there are certain cases of hardship here and there, there should be an all-round increase. That must be justified by the facts. As I said earlier, although my sympathy is as wide as it is possible to be, with the trust which has been placed in my hands I must see that fair play is given to the men on the one hand, and on the other hand that I do what I can in the right and proper way to conserve the resources of the State. That is the position that I am taking up. In any case of doubt, as far as I am concerned the benefit of the doubt is with the applicant.
My hon. and gallant Friend also mentioned the question of the new war pensions not being on a level with the old war pensions. That is perfectly true. I have explained before how those scales of pensions were arrived at. On one occasion we had a long Debate about it, and I then gave a pledge that when the cost of living increased considerably these scales would be reviewed. I carried out that pledge; the scales were reviewed. They were approved by this House, and when we had a Debate on those scales I stated that when there was a further substantial increase in the cost of living I should certainly consider those scales of pensions again and make certain recommendations to the Government in the light of the evidence then produced. That is what I intend to do, and I can assure my hon. and gallant Friend that I am watching the position carefully. I am doing everything I can, in conjunction with the Ministry of Labour and the Ministry of Health, to develop the scheme to which I have referred, and although we have not had a long experience of this war, I am glad to say that we have been able to do a great deaf in this matter already. I commend this fact to hon. Members: In my view, it is far better to help a man to acquire a knowledge of some occupation, even if it is not the occupation that he had before he joined the Army, but something which will give him a real interest in life and enable him to supplement his pension by something that he has earned himself. The satisfaction of earning undoubtedly is something that is worth while to the man.
In my own dealings with these men, when I have gone around hospitals, as I have done recently, men who know that


they will not be able to go back into the Army have said to me, "Is there any chance of my being trained for some occupation? I shall not be able to go back to my old job because of my disability." And when I have assured them that every case will be given an opportunity of being trained, they have said, "Life is worth living, after all. I shall be able, not only to interest myself, but to earn something and be a useful citizen." I believe that 95 per cent. of our men feel that way. I feel that when we come to deal with this question— because it may have to come to this House at some time or other— I shall have the full support of hon. Members, and in particular that of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Lonsdale so. that the men may have a fair chance of earning money for themselves.
The question was raised about pensions to wives and children of men who marry after the disability takes place. That is a difficult question. It has been a fundamental principle that the State recognises only those domestic obligations which were in force at the time of disablement. That principle has been laid down throughout the whole history of pensions, and for me to make a promise that that principle will be changed would be wrong on my, part, because it is a matter of major policy. It is not merely my own opinion as Minister of Pensions. Its ramifications are a bit too wide for me to make any promise. In my opinion it is the right and proper thing not to pay a pension to the wife of a man when she marries him after he has suffered his disability. If we require any real experience of this, we have only to turn to the United States of America, where it became such a ramp that it was the object of public indignation. It is not possible to draw a line. My hon. and gallant Friend said he had a suggestion to make as to how it could be done. I would like him to send me particulars, for I would like to see it for myself. With all my experience of pension matters— and it is an extensive one, from the opposite side to where I am now— I can assure hon. Members that this is one of the most difficult problems any Minister could have to deal with. I have never yet said that I knew all there is to know about things, and I have never closed my mind to any reasonable suggestion, so if my hon. and gallant

Friend will send along his suggestion, I shall be very glad to consider it. I think, however, that the proper time to consider all these questions is when we have won through to victory, which we are going to do. I am satisfied that this House of Commons will see to it that those who are victims of this war and have been victims of previous wars will have justice meted out to them. This House is the greatest tribunal in the world and the fairest, and I cannot conceive that any Minister of Pensions will be allowed to stand here at this Box unless he is doing the right thing.
Various points have been raised by other hon. Members, and I would like to deal with them, because it is only a matter of courtesy to do so. My hon. Friend the Member for Wood Green (Mr. Baxter) raised the difficult question of on or off duty. It is laid down in the Royal Warrant that pensions are payable where the disability or death is directly attributable to war service or is materially hastened thereby. I have had this question of on or off duty thoroughly considered by my Advisory Committee; I do not say that we were not as sympathetic to the man off duty as to the man on duty, because if the man dies, what we all have to think about are his wife and children. But although that may be the proper way to look at it from a sentimental standpoint, I can only act according to the Royal Warrant, which I have to administer, and this on or off duty question is one that has given considerable difficulty. It may, of course, be said that during the last war, if a man was killed in France or anywhere else outside Great Britain, whatever the cause, the pension was granted, because he was supposed to be on duty all the time. But we have to watch Service practice in these matters. If a man is on leave, he is not on duty, and to lay down that he is on duty so long as he is in uniform would be a two-edged weapon which might cause greater difficulty than already exists.

Mr. Granville: But he got a pension if killed on leave in the last war.

Sir W. Womersley: Not necessarily.

Mr. Baxter: In the last war a man anywhere in France was considered to be on active service. Now we are no longer fighting in France, but this country has become the battlefield. The position is practically parallel.

Sir W. Womersley: I have to work according to the Regulations laid down in the Royal Warrant; I cannot go beyond that. On the question of defining when a man is on or off duty, however, I have a certain latitude, which I always exercise for the benefit of the claimant as far as possible. But there are sometimes other features in these cases as hon. Members would see if they were able to inspect the papers. I invite them to come and see the papers in connection with cases in which they may be interested.
My hon. Friend the Member for Can-nock (Mr. Adamson) referred to the case of a man who, unfortunately, had to have both feet amputated. The man was returning from leave, certainly; but he had jumped into a moving train. That could be held to be an act of folly. But I was able to take that case in hand; and, as my hon. Friend said, although we could not give the man a pension, we did the next best thing: we provided him with artificial feet, and, with the help of his trade union, we got him into a job, where he is, I believe, earning full trade union wages. I am giving the matter very careful consideration, and seeing how this on-and-off-duty regulation is worked, with a view to improving the position of those affected, if possible. I have to get a set of regulations. I am sure my hon. Friend will agree that it is not fair to ask any Government to provide compensation for a man who, by an act of folly, has occasioned his disability. It is true that in the case of a man who is injured because of the black-out, if the man had not been a soldier he would not have been in that particular place; but if there had been no war and no black-out, many of the civilians who have been killed in road accidents would have been still alive. However, I am giving this matter my serious consideration. I am glad to say that my Advisory Committee are still in existence, and I have had no resignations. I do not call them together unless there is something of major importance to consider, because they are busy men and women. When I have a meeting of that committee again— which I hope will be before very long— we shall deal with questions which have arisen in this Debate.

Sir Percy Harris (Bethnal Green, South-West): Do these sittings last a long time?

Sir W. Womersley: Oh, yes. A very important point was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Denbigh (Sir H. Morris-Jones). This gives me an opportunity of issuing an ultimatum to the War Office, which I have long wished to have an opportunity of doing. I have discovered that we have been getting cases of men who have one week's real service in the Army and then have applied for a pension, although they have never been beyond the first billet that they were put into. Once a man has enlisted in the Army, it is not sufficient to say after his first parade that it can be seen at a glance that he is no good for the Army. Various Boards have to deal with the matter, and it takes some weeks before the man can be passed out of the Service. When Members write to me and say that a man has had seven weeks' service, I should be glad if they would find out whether this is real service. It usually turns out that he has had one week's service. Men who were called up for service in the Territorial Army did not have an examination when they were embodied. There has been a careful examination of these men, and those who do not appear likely to make good soldiers, or who, it is thought, would suffer from Army service, are being discharged— quite a number of them. But you have also another type of recruit— the man who usually joins the Auxiliary Pioneer Corps or the Royal Defence Corps, perhaps a man like myself who wanted to be back in the Army. Some of them give different reasons. I received a number of these cases from a particular camp of about 3,000 men. I made it my business to go to the camp and find out for myself what really was happening. I met a number of fellows who had served in the last war from almost every regiment in the British Army. They gave various reasons why they came back into the British Army. One man, for instance, said it was because he wanted to "dodge the missus," whatever that meant. I also discovered a man with an artificial leg who had been passed as fit, and another man who was so blind as to come within the meaning of the Blind Persons Act, and hon. Members know that means that a man is too blind to be able to follow an occupation. I believed that, in going to the War Office and the medical staffs, I had here two really good cases. I put


these cases up as samples of the careless examination which took place at that time in respect of men who had got, not into the Territorials, but into the Regular Forces.
What was the explanation? It was the rush of recruiting— and there was a bit of a rush when they first started recruiting— of men over the ordinary military age who wished to get back into the Army. It appears that, in this case, some fellow had gone to the recruiting office and had given the name of the man with the artificial leg, who was a fellow of about the same age. This man, who was quite fit, passed the doctor, gave the name of the other fellow, walked out with his papers and travelling warrant, and went into the "pub" around the corner and received 10s. from the man with the artificial leg, who went and joined the camp, and they did not discover him until he had his first physical jerks. These are absolute facts. The same sort of thing applied to the blind man, and it was the same man who had been concerned with the man with the wooden leg. I ask hon. Members how they would guard against cases of that sort, and these were only two cases out of many.
There is, however, a much more searching medical examination taking place today, and I am not receiving the number of cases that I did formerly. Having made a protest to those responsible for this examination, I am glad to say that notice was taken pf it, and I believe that to-day there is a much stricter examination. My hon. Friend, I know, is a medical man, because he once doctored me and put me fit, and he knows very well that there are certain things that might be troublesome to an individual and do not show themselves at the time of examination unless there is a proper examination by means of X-rays. There are many things, such as duodenal ulcer, for instance, and I have seen the attestation papers of many of these men. The question has been asked, "Have you ever suffered from a certain disease?" and the answer has been, "No."
"Have you ever suffered from some other disease?" and the answer has been, "No," and it goes on, "No," "No," "No," so that the men themselves have been responsible for deceiving the examining doctor. Afterwards it has transpired that perhaps six years before

that time, a man had been under treatment for something from which he had said he had never suffered.
I want hon. Members to realise how these things come home when you are in a Department and receive a letter saying, "I have been turned out of the Army as I am unfit." But that is not sufficient. I have wanted to see the papers myself. I will tell the House the position that I have taken up. It has to be proved to me that it is a constitutional disease, that a man has suffered from it and that it is ascertainable from his medical record. There are men in the Army to-day who are alive and well but who would not be but for the medical attention they have received. These are the cases of which we never hear, but I agree that it had become very necessary to tighten up these medical examinations. When a man is told he is A.I he naturally feels A.I, and if anything happens, he thinks he ought to be compensated.
Many of those who went into the Pioneer Corps were not passed A.I, but C.3, and were allowed to do clerical work. Hon. Members, I am sure, will not mind my suggesting that if they have any cases brought to their notice, they will bring them to me or my Parliamentary Secretary. We are only too anxious to go into them and let them see what is the real position. There was in the old days such things as "swinging the lead" and "working your ticket." I had a case brought to my notice the other day of a man who made desperate efforts to get out of the Army on medical grounds. He succeeded at last and promptly put in a claim to my Department for a pension. When interviewed, he admitted that he was working on his old job, receiving full pay, and was not under the doctor. He said, "I thought it would clinch the matter if I put in an application for a pension. If I did not put in an application, they might have thought I was kidding." As a matter of fact this man "got his ticket."
Let me say again how glad I am to have had the opportunity of discussing this matter to-day. Hon. Members have been very kind to me, and I want to assure them that I take a personal interest in the cases they send to me. They need not be afraid of sending them, although


perhaps it would not be a bad thing for them and myself if they "vetted" them a little before doing so. With good will, I am sure we can all do something for those who may suffer disability as a result of this war.

Sir Robert Tasker: May I ask the Parliamentary Secretary whether he will give consideration to another aspect of the 100 per cent. disability pensioner. The noble conception of Sir Oswald Stoll which he carried into effect at Fulham has given gratifying results. His scheme was to preserve family life to enable medical treatment to be carried out in the disabled man's home, with the result that over a series of years a very large proportion of those 100 per cent. cases are now 25 per cent., 55 per cent., or 75 per cent. Enabling men to be treated in their homes is a very different thing from their being treated in hospital.

Mr. Tinker: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for the full explanation that he has given, but one matter cropped up in the course of his speech in reference to soldiers who get wounded while unmarried, but who marry later in life. I have pressed the point on many occasions, and the right hon. Gentleman is not unsympathetic to the point of view, but he feels that he wants some expression of opinion from the House in regard to the matter. The country calls on its young people to serve in the Army. Many marry before they go, but some do not. They do not feel inclined to marry. They would rather come back and face life afterwards, without being encumbered by a wife. If they get wounded and disabled and then marry, the wife is not entitled to any allowance, neither are the children. Is it right that they should be in a different category? I claim that that is entirely wrong when you ask people to give of their best for the country and then deprive

them of an entitlement that everyone ought to have. The right hon. Gentleman tells us that this is a major question which involves a large amount of money. We come across many major questions, but is it justice to the soldier? No one can say that it is justice that a man who comes back wounded and then gets married should not be on the same plane as anyone else. That is my appeal to the right hon. Gentleman. It is one of those things that every Minister of Pensions has been afraid to face.
We are involved in the greatest war in history. Whatever other Ministers have burked because of the cost of the thing, the present Minister ought not to take that as a reason why he should not tackle it. I want him to consider it seriously. He has asked the hon. and gallant Gentleman to send him on some scheme that he has in mind and I hope he will. I have put my point of view in more detail, I have provided safeguards where a designing woman attempts to get hold of a man, but what I am more concerned about are the children, who get no allowance. I would point out to the Minister that after this war we shall want to do all we can to increase the birth-rate. The depletion of the nation's manhood during this war will make us all eager to increase the child population. One of the reasons for France's downfall was their declining birth-rate. By this method, because of economic factors, we are restricting many of our soldiers from having children. I plead with the Minister to review this matter in a wider and broader aspect, and to see whether there is justice in it. If he agrees that there is justice, I ask him to come forward and demand the money. I do not want him to hide behind what has been done in the past. Money should not enter into it. We can find the money if only the Minister of Pensions will help us.

Question, "That this House do now adjourn," put, and agreed to.